If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   "Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?"   (townhall.com) divider line 499
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

1806 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2013 at 9:43 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



499 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-07 07:46:35 AM
I guess Republicans are going to spend some time blaming Sarvis and Libertarians for farking up America.
 
2013-11-07 08:37:24 AM

vygramul: I guess Republicans are going to spend some time blaming Sarvis and Libertarians for farking up America.


You say that like you're surprised their MO hasn't changed.

Introspection?  Never.  Attack?  Of course.
 
2013-11-07 08:41:14 AM
All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!
 
2013-11-07 08:42:14 AM
Also, there are a few who are Republicans but too self-aware to call themselves Republicans.
 
2013-11-07 08:46:27 AM
Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?

Well, there's also the self-centeredness and sociopathy.
 
2013-11-07 08:48:48 AM

Diogenes: Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?

Well, there's also the self-centeredness and sociopathy.


Don't forget the fedora
 
2013-11-07 08:59:53 AM
It means you're probably white.
 
2013-11-07 09:02:43 AM
1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-11-07 09:22:48 AM

kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!


I can't disagree.  I went through a dumb college libertarian phase.  Then I graduated and the real world slapped some sense into me.  Between wising up and watching the political spectrum around me being distorted, I'm now pretty damn liberal.
 
2013-11-07 09:39:54 AM
Wow, Subby didn't make the headline up, its an actual quote FTFA.
 
2013-11-07 09:46:07 AM
I remember a friend who was a rabid libertarian. And then he had an autistic son born to him.
 
2013-11-07 09:46:37 AM
Did they drop the elimination of public schools from their platform?
 
2013-11-07 09:47:00 AM

kxs401: Also, there are a few who are Republicans but too self-aware to call themselves Republicans.


Most I have met are Republicans that are too self-aware to call themselves Republicans.

Both Sides are Bad! So vote Republican!
 
2013-11-07 09:47:03 AM
mgoblog.com
 
2013-11-07 09:47:19 AM
Objectivism is autism, expressed as an existential philosophy.
Libertarianism is autism, expressed as a political philosophy.

Neither will ever attract more than about 5% of the human race as real adherents.
 
2013-11-07 09:48:54 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-07 09:48:57 AM

justaguy516: I remember a friend who was a rabid libertarian. And then he had an autistic son born to him.


A chip off the old block, then?
 
2013-11-07 09:49:20 AM

justaguy516: I remember a friend who was a rabid libertarian. And then he had an autistic son born to him.


Your friend was probably mildly autistic himself - it's common among libertarians. Probably passed it on to the kid.
 
2013-11-07 09:49:40 AM

BunkoSquad: Diogenes: Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?

Well, there's also the self-centeredness and sociopathy.

Don't forget the fedora


and the rich parents
 
2013-11-07 09:49:51 AM

kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!


It's not just you.   That's pretty much the entire herd.
 
2013-11-07 09:50:22 AM
www.leftycartoons.com
 
2013-11-07 09:50:35 AM

justaguy516: I remember a friend who was a rabid libertarian. And then he had an autistic son born to him.


Which he knew how?
 
2013-11-07 09:51:59 AM
"No true libertarian..."
 
2013-11-07 09:54:01 AM
Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-07 09:55:12 AM

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 553x768]


What IS this...I don't even...
 
2013-11-07 09:55:36 AM

The Martian Manhandler: [www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]


In my lolbertarian days (I was registered Librtarian from '76 to '06) I was a Briefly Tempting, Left-Wing, Stoned Libertarian, as best as I can remember.
 
2013-11-07 09:55:45 AM

kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.


You forget about rich guys who got their wealth largely because of advantages that only happen in a stater where the govt makes investments for the future, who want to end thos einvestments because they are bootstrappy.
 
2013-11-07 09:56:02 AM

kxs401: Also, there are a few who are Republicans but too self-aware to call themselves Republicans.


THIS.

My best friend from high school has recently decided to call himself Libertarian, but he pretty much parrots Rand Paul (who himself apparently hasn't had an original idea in years). I finally had to block him from FB because of all the "ERMAHGERD! SEEKRIT MOOSELEM!" bullshiat.

I do enjoy my debates with the couple of friends who can hold decent, thought-provoking conversations, but this guy apparently thinks Monty Python's Argument Clinic is a good idea.

/no it isn't
 
2013-11-07 09:57:08 AM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


That's.........beautiful.
 
2013-11-07 09:57:23 AM
 
2013-11-07 09:57:25 AM
"F*ck you, I've got mine!"
 
2013-11-07 09:57:51 AM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


that has to be a joke...
 
2013-11-07 09:57:54 AM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


...wow

That is either the most disturbing thing I've read in quite some time, or some brilliant comedy.
 
2013-11-07 09:57:59 AM
The only positive thing you can say about libertarianism is that it's internally consistent.  It's failings become obvious in any attempt to address a real-world issue.
 
2013-11-07 09:58:15 AM

Valiente: justaguy516: I remember a friend who was a rabid libertarian. And then he had an autistic son born to him.

Which he knew how?


From his home-schooling psych 101 textbook, of course.  Duh.
 
2013-11-07 09:58:42 AM
It is always fun to see someone get exposed to libertarian ideas. Usually they start out with all the stuff they agree with and get somewhat excited

Then they find the other half of the general views and discover they are things that they usually despise.

It is just like watching a horrible prank on someone. Sure you feel a little bad about it but it is hilarious at the same time.
 
2013-11-07 09:59:00 AM

The Martian Manhandler: [www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]


I have a friend who is one of the rare, Left-wing libertarians. It's like knowing a unicorn. (Although he's also just out of college).
 
2013-11-07 09:59:09 AM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


img.fark.net
 
2013-11-07 09:59:47 AM
Another article about how if they would just be TRUE libertarians it would be the best thing ever.

There is a reason why no one has ever successfully tried out your bullshiat philosophy, guys.
 
2013-11-07 10:00:07 AM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


THAT is the best answer I've seen to "Who is John Galt" NOw I'll see this punks image everytime I hear John Galt.
 
2013-11-07 10:00:18 AM

jso2897: The Martian Manhandler: [www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]

In my lolbertarian days (I was registered Librtarian from '76 to '06) I was a Briefly Tempting, Left-Wing, Stoned Libertarian, as best as I can remember.


Due to influence from my mother's then-boyfriend (who was a weird combination of Naive, Terrified, Whitey and The Apostle), I became a big fan of Ron Paul's 1988 Presidential campaign on the Libertarian ticket.

Then as I grew older, I realized most of everything in the Libertarian platform short of legalizing drugs was stupid.
 
2013-11-07 10:00:22 AM
It means you are too much of a pussy to call yourself an Anarchist
 
2013-11-07 10:01:35 AM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-07 10:01:43 AM
QueenMamaBee:

/no it isn't

Your type make me puke, QueenMamaBee.

/Nono, it's "WAAAA!" Put your hand there.
//Would love subjecting some Libertarians to "Getting hit on the head lessons."
 
2013-11-07 10:02:16 AM

QueenMamaBee: kxs401: Also, there are a few who are Republicans but too self-aware to call themselves Republicans.

THIS.

My best friend from high school has recently decided to call himself Libertarian, but he pretty much parrots Rand Paul (who himself apparently hasn't had an original idea in years). I finally had to block him from FB because of all the "ERMAHGERD! SEEKRIT MOOSELEM!" bullshiat.

I do enjoy my debates with the couple of friends who can hold decent, thought-provoking conversations, but this guy apparently thinks Monty Python's Argument Clinic is a good idea.

/no it isn't


i18.photobucket.com

But, seriously - the difficulty is that taken as individual principles, the vast majority of Libertarian principles are morally and philosophically sound.
What "Libertarians" fail to see is that is is quite possible for this to be so, and at the same time, for "Libertarianism" as an overarching social and political philosophy to be utter nonsense.
That is, in fact, the case.
 
2013-11-07 10:02:25 AM
"free markets to a gaggle of misfits who want pot and prostitution legalized and a total non-interventionist foreign policy."


What exactly do you think the "free market" is going to provide?  Wholesome values?  Left to their own devices people will sell each other for a pocket of shiny rocks you flippin' moron.

"Libertarians have devolved from the pro-liberty wing of the right side of the ledger to the annoying kid who, when he doesn't get 100 percent of what he wants, takes his ball and goes home."


Who are you dictate what "pro liberty" is supposed to mean?  If your highest goal is personal freedom,  don't be surprised when it turns out to be purely selfish means.  This guy is arguing contradictions.
 
2013-11-07 10:03:49 AM

UNC_Samurai: I can't disagree. I went through a dumb college libertarian phase. Then I graduated and the real world slapped some sense into me. Between wising up and watching the political spectrum around me being distorted, I'm now pretty damn liberal.


Libertarians, like the Tea Party, are a group that espouses ideas that are contrary to what the individuals actually believe. I like jeffersonian liberalism, but I understand that as a practical matter progressive liberalism is more aligned to today's practical realities. It would be really "nice" if we could have a small central government, strong constitutional liberties and a strong self reliance. It is something that did work when this country was expanding, but these days we can't go back to the quaint world of homesteads. That is where libertarians get into trouble. They have ignored why we got where we are. Social justice, government oversight and restraint of rights were all necessary to have a functional and better society.
 
2013-11-07 10:04:18 AM
Like any pure political philosophy libertarianism in an extreme form is doomed to failure.  Socialism, Capitalism (technically it's a kind of Oligarchy, I guess), Communism, Authoritarianism...  every single one is a non-starter unless blended with several other philosophies.

This is why the general talking points coming from the GOP these days are so pants on head retarded.  You shouldn't have to change your underpants every time Rush tells you something socialist is a-brewing... you should be thinking about whether a socialist solution for a particular problem makes sense.
 
2013-11-07 10:04:52 AM

kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!


Damn. You really nailed every single Libertarian I know too.
 
2013-11-07 10:06:05 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-07 10:06:25 AM
The comments are even more stupid.  Bunch of halfwits calling each other "liberals."
 
2013-11-07 10:06:40 AM

DarnoKonrad: "free markets to a gaggle of misfits who want pot and prostitution legalized and a total non-interventionist foreign policy."


What exactly do you think the "free market" is going to provide?  Wholesome values?  Left to their own devices people will sell each other for a pocket of shiny rocks you flippin' moron.

"Libertarians have devolved from the pro-liberty wing of the right side of the ledger to the annoying kid who, when he doesn't get 100 percent of what he wants, takes his ball and goes home."


Who are you dictate what "pro liberty" is supposed to mean?  If your highest goal is personal freedom,  don't be surprised when it turns out to be purely selfish means.  This guy is arguing contradictions.


Well, Libertarian dogma is a lot like Abrahamic dogma (and indeed most other kinds) - it means whatever you want it to mean.
 
2013-11-07 10:08:38 AM
DarnoKonrad: This guy is arguing contradictions.

Well look, DarnoKonrad, if he argues with you, he must take up a contrary position!

I've tried formulating coherent arguments with and about Libertarians - I really have. But I've found making Monty Python references is really the only sensible response in the end.

/YES IT IS!
 
2013-11-07 10:08:44 AM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


He's an armchair intellectual! The curse of saying that is people MIGHT challenge you on your thinking. The brony and ayn rand admission would have him brought to tears in the crowds I live in.
 
2013-11-07 10:09:40 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-07 10:10:10 AM

axeeugene: Your type make me puke, QueenMamaBee.


If I wanted abuse, I would have gone down the hallway
 
2013-11-07 10:10:41 AM
I was a libertarian in High school. I was also an asshole in high school, and if I met my high school self, I would punch me right in the face.
 
2013-11-07 10:12:01 AM
Sideburns. Weird-ass sideburns.

i28.photobucket.comi28.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-07 10:13:05 AM

UNC_Samurai: kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!

I can't disagree.  I went through a dumb college libertarian phase.  Then I graduated and the real world slapped some sense into me.  Between wising up and watching the political spectrum around me being distorted, I'm now pretty damn liberal.


I understand some semblance of Libertarianism and, in some circumstances, it may actually work.  Trying to apply Libertarianism in the real world however, is suicidal at best.
 
2013-11-07 10:15:01 AM
What Libertarians do exceedingly well is sit on the sidelines, arms folded, and complain.

How is that different from Republicans?
 
2013-11-07 10:15:34 AM

Diogenes: Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?

Well, there's also the self-centeredness and sociopathy.


That's Randians
 
2013-11-07 10:15:40 AM
"The word no longer has any meaning, no definition or parameters, certainly no coherent philosophy to speak of."

I suppose this is the case because "libertarian" is just the opposite of "authoritarian" and never had its own philosophy.  Certain flavors or communists called themselve libertarian communists to distinguish themselves from authoritarian communists.  In many respects the Green Party is libertarian.  It's a word that should be one peice of a political philosphy, because by itself it doesn't mean a whole lot.
 
2013-11-07 10:17:00 AM
Some people just want to watch the world burn. Others want to snort lines off a hooker's ass while the world burns.
 
2013-11-07 10:17:17 AM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


moviecitynews.com

/'nuff said
 
2013-11-07 10:17:26 AM
It used to be about defensive government, until they turned against healthcare.

It used to be about protection of property rights, until they decided that the greatest historical theft stealing from an entire people the payment for their work through centuries of slavery needed no retribution.

So yeah, now just hookers and blow, with undercurrents of racism.
 
2013-11-07 10:17:30 AM
This reminds me of how Democrats complained about the Greens following Al Gore's loss in 2000.
 
2013-11-07 10:17:31 AM
Townhall: "Libertarians don't conform to our conservative views enough"

Happens whenever a libertarian candidate steals votes from them.
 
2013-11-07 10:18:25 AM

Lost Thought 00: It means you are too much of a pussy to call yourself an Anarchist


CSB: Back in college, I was walking out of a record store one day, wearing a leather jacket festooned with my favorite punk band logos.  Some dude had a booth set up outside the store and tried to get me to sign up as a libertarian by telling me it was the closest thing to an anarcho-punk political party there was.

/CSB
 
2013-11-07 10:18:30 AM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


Hilarious.  Is this from your personal stash of profiles dredged from the depths of OKCupid?
 
2013-11-07 10:19:39 AM
I used to identify with the Libertarian Party... but I'm now more along the lines of the Modern Whig party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Whig
 
2013-11-07 10:20:05 AM
I guess I'd pass for libertarian here at Fark - that comes from watching the progressive model be at best an expensive mediocrity in my home state, and watching power seeking more power in Washington no matter who's in charge.

Call libertarianism the opposite of whatever the party that wants to play Santa Claus and the party that wants to play God are doing.
 
2013-11-07 10:20:22 AM

russlar: [i.imgur.com image 310x390]


If anyone missed the Unfrozen Caveman Libertarian thread, they should really check out it's epicness.
 
2013-11-07 10:21:17 AM

Karac: What Libertarians do exceedingly well is sit on the sidelines, arms folded, and complain.

How is that different from Republicans?


Libertarians spell better.
 
2013-11-07 10:21:38 AM

Karac: What Libertarians do exceedingly well is sit on the sidelines, arms folded, and complain.

How is that different from Republicans?


Republicans like to sit in the middle of the field, arms folded, and complain
 
2013-11-07 10:21:45 AM
Libertarian are also for the gold standard even though they have no idea what problem they'd solve by switching and are oblivious to any possible negative repercussions the switch may cause.
 
2013-11-07 10:22:01 AM

axeeugene: DarnoKonrad: This guy is arguing contradictions.

Well look, DarnoKonrad, if he argues with you, he must take up a contrary position!

I've tried formulating coherent arguments with and about Libertarians - I really have. But I've found making Monty Python references is really the only sensible response in the end.

/YES IT IS!


Seconded. Ni! Ni!
 
2013-11-07 10:23:18 AM
Well, subby convinced me.  Off to change affiliation.
 
2013-11-07 10:23:57 AM

Karac: What Libertarians do exceedingly well is sit on the sidelines, arms folded, and complain.

How is that different from Republicans?


They don't get opposed by others in their own party when they try and run for something.
 
2013-11-07 10:24:43 AM
Oh, and they used to be for the open right of migration for worker freedom, until they became xenophobic antiimmigration because they noticed some of those so-called workers are brown (or worse).
 
2013-11-07 10:25:07 AM
A link on the main page shows it means coughing up $20k to the fire department if they fight a fire at your home.
 
2013-11-07 10:25:39 AM

Gulper Eel: I guess I'd pass for libertarian here at Fark - that comes from watching the progressive model be at best an expensive mediocrity in my home state, and watching power seeking more power in Washington no matter who's in charge.

Call libertarianism the opposite of whatever the party that wants to play Santa Claus and the party that wants to play God are doing.


That isn't libertarianism. Greedy survivalist is more accurate. What you mean to say is your an independent that is a moderate. Unfortunate as that is.
 
2013-11-07 10:25:54 AM
Wanting smaller, less intrusive government and supporting personal liberty. What a bunch of greedy cave dwellers.
 
2013-11-07 10:26:44 AM
The GOP establishment is afraid of growing libertarianism inside their party...so they're taking a break from attacking gays, women and Democrats to attack libertarianism.  Color me shocked.  Actually, it's good news for libertarians that they consider libertarianism a threat to the status quo.

It's a pretty simple philosophy:   Socially liberal, fiscally conservative (non-crony capitalism), and a more non-interventionist foreign policy.  The author doesn't understand it...and judging by the lefty responses in this thread...neither do most farkers.
 
2013-11-07 10:26:49 AM

dwrash: I used to identify with the Libertarian Party... but I'm now more along the lines of the Modern Whig party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Whig


the meaningful distinctions are:
 
2013-11-07 10:27:32 AM

EWreckedSean: Wanting smaller, less intrusive government and supporting personal liberty. What a bunch of greedy cave dwellers.


The brand has been hijacked by people on the far right. Is Glenn Beck really a libertarian, or the socially conservative wing of the Tea Party?
 
2013-11-07 10:28:58 AM

slayer199: It's a pretty simple philosophy:


You can't even get Libertarians to agree what a Libertarian is in their own party.
 
2013-11-07 10:28:58 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/libertarianism-for-dummies/

Too long. Don't read.


Here's your problem, "Max Borders"

8. Myth: Libertarians agree on everything.
Here's a mini top ten list of things about which libertarians are fairly divided:
1.) Immigration
2.) Austrian or Chicago economics
3.) Abortion
4.) Origin of rights
5.) The status of children and teenagers
6.) War and pacifism
7.) Strategy of reform
8.) Tactics of reform
9.) Whether to compromise
10.) Intellectual property rights

They even disagree on what libertarianism is, I don't think they've exactly coalesced around the Max Bordersian definition.
 
2013-11-07 10:29:03 AM

kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!


I'm 32, I have never smoked anything, I work for the federal government, and I want a properly sized nd scoped federal government.

So you think the war on drugs is a proper and effective use of resources, the government is always benevolent, and that power is always better centralized?
 
2013-11-07 10:29:50 AM
Anyone who thinks that Mises or Rothbard were awesome people should be sterilized. Immediately.
 
2013-11-07 10:30:38 AM

BMFPitt: and that power is always better centralized?


Even Jefferson recognized the need for a strong centralized federal government in a global world, lay off it already
 
2013-11-07 10:30:43 AM

Fart_Machine: slayer199: It's a pretty simple philosophy:

You can't even get Libertarians to agree what a Libertarian is in their own party.


I doubt any party completely agrees about its philosophy unless it's a party of one.
 
2013-11-07 10:30:51 AM

skullkrusher: Diogenes: Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?

Well, there's also the self-centeredness and sociopathy.

That's Randians


Randians are narcissists, not sociopaths. They believe society is just jealous of how extra special they are and so tries to keep them down. Libertarians are closer to sociopaths because they usually recognize that societal structures help some people but want to get rid of them because they don't personally benefit.
 
2013-11-07 10:31:58 AM
jorts, mlp tee shirt
 
2013-11-07 10:32:04 AM

lockers: That isn't libertarianism. Greedy survivalist is more accurate.


So because, for example, my state spends as much on Medicaid than the next two largest states put together, without producing outcomes any better than the states that spend a shiatload less, and I think that's a damn stupid thing to do...I'm a greedy survivalist?

I take it you're with the Kris Kringle wing of the Democratic party.
 
2013-11-07 10:33:59 AM

kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!


All the libertarians I know are early-30s tech sector workers with bad beards who think they're so much smarter than everyone else and can simply solve all the world's problems by letting markets do everything.

Need to protect children from exploitation? Let kidnappers take them and sell them in the sex trade. If the parents care enough, they will hire mercenaries to get them back.

Want to open up a medical practice even though you're not a doctor? After ten of your patients die your Yelp reviews will be so bad you won't be able to stay in business.
 
2013-11-07 10:34:11 AM
I put libertarianism up there with communism in the pantheon of BS political philosophies. Both fail for the same underlying reason, greed. Communism fails to take into account human greed and assumes everyone will be okay with sharing all the resources whereas libertarianism celebrates human greed and sociopathy and yet somehow assumes everything will turn out fine if we let these qualities run amok on a national scale.  We had a small taste of how a libertarian-style unregulated market would act with the sub-prime mortgage debacle and it almost broke the world economy. I shudder to think what would happen if we actually tried full implementation.

It's an interesting thought exercise but it quickly falls apart as a philosophy when subjected to even the slightest scrutiny.
 
2013-11-07 10:35:12 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: BMFPitt: and that power is always better centralized?

Even Jefferson recognized the need for a strong centralized federal government in a global world, lay off it already


Are you saying that you think the federal government should have unlimited power over everything, or just that you didn't understand what you were reading?
 
2013-11-07 10:36:03 AM
It means you're not sure how things work or why some laws were necessary in the first place, but you're pretty sure both sides are bad, but you're good so...,

it's basically for people who don't quite get what's happening, but want to act as though they are above it all without offering any real world solutions.

/had a brief bout of libertarianism in my early 20s
//I got better
 
2013-11-07 10:36:25 AM

Gulper Eel: lockers: That isn't libertarianism. Greedy survivalist is more accurate.

So because, for example, my state spends as much on Medicaid than the next two largest states put together, without producing outcomes any better than the states that spend a shiatload less, and I think that's a damn stupid thing to do...I'm a greedy survivalist?

I take it you're with the Kris Kringle wing of the Democratic party.


I blame the political conditioning. There are people so mentally... warped thanks to a constant barrage of "THOSE EXTREMISTS ARE COMING FOR YOU" that they only recognize "for my idea" and "against my idea" and nothing in between.

That or they're just stubborn hard liners.
 
2013-11-07 10:36:27 AM

Gulper Eel: lockers: That isn't libertarianism. Greedy survivalist is more accurate.

So because, for example, my state spends as much on Medicaid than the next two largest states put together, without producing outcomes any better than the states that spend a shiatload less, and I think that's a damn stupid thing to do...I'm a greedy survivalist?

I take it you're with the Kris Kringle wing of the Democratic party.


No, what I am telling you is libertarians are defined in whole as greedy survivalists. If you want to group yourself in with that, I won't stop or mock you, but that is who you are throwing in with. I think you are more likely an independent moderate, but there isn't a real good national party behind that.
 
2013-11-07 10:36:51 AM

super_grass: Fart_Machine: slayer199: It's a pretty simple philosophy:

You can't even get Libertarians to agree what a Libertarian is in their own party.

I doubt any party completely agrees about its philosophy unless it's a party of one.


This. People act like the Libertarian Party is unique in this regard. It's not. Show me a single political party ever that didn't have fights over "He's not a real [fill-in-the-blank]!"

Sarvis was one of the best candidates the LP has ever had. He ran as a pragmatic libertarian, keen on socially liberal issues and not a strident holier-than-thou ideologue. He's in the mold of Gary Johnson and Jim Gray, and in my opinion the LP is definitely headed in the right direction with them.

/just got my Libertarian Party of Wisconsin membership card in the mail
//so yes, I'm a card-carrying Libertarian
 
2013-11-07 10:37:00 AM

Muta: Libertarian are also for the gold standard even though they have no idea what problem they'd solve by switching and are oblivious to any possible negative repercussions the switch may cause.


B-b-but inflation! False value! Objectivism! Fiat currency is just paper! Gold has intrinsic value, not a value set by market prices! Wait... what? I'M CONFUSED AND ANGRY. RON PAUL!
 
2013-11-07 10:38:17 AM
Around here it means you likely own land with the mineral rights and cattle.
 
2013-11-07 10:38:47 AM

BMFPitt: Are you saying that you think the federal government should have unlimited power over everything, or just that you didn't understand what you were reading?


Limited within the scope of what is necessary at the time, up to and yes included unlimited should the republic need it

We fought that war already and settled this argument some time ago
 
2013-11-07 10:41:40 AM
It's worth noting that the "Sarvis is a fake libertarian!" crap isn't really coming from the usual suspects within the LP. It's coming from unabashed right-wing conservatives who are made the Republican lost, because a majority of voters cast ballots for social liberals. It's not even true that Sarvis cost Cuccinelli this election (though if it were that would be part of the point). All you have to do is compare the results from the Lt. Gov. election- the exact same voters cast ballots with only a Republican and a Democrat to choose from, and the Democrat won in a ten point blowout.
 
2013-11-07 10:41:42 AM
Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.
 
2013-11-07 10:42:31 AM

BMFPitt: kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!

I'm 32, I have never smoked anything, I work for the federal government, and I want a properly sized nd scoped federal government.

So you think the war on drugs is a proper and effective use of resources, the government is always benevolent, and that power is always better centralized?


Now I can add to the list: people who don't understand words and ideas.
 
2013-11-07 10:43:17 AM

t3knomanser: Fiat currency is just paper!


It's much worse than that, fiat currency is debt. It is a promise that someone will pay you back. There isn't even, in the scheme of things, an appreciable amount of paper backing that debt up. Welcome to modern money systems. Is it a bad thing? I can say that we seem appreciably better off since we went onto the system, so I will give it a pass.
 
2013-11-07 10:43:45 AM

sprawl15: dwrash: I used to identify with the Libertarian Party... but I'm now more along the lines of the Modern Whig party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Whig

the meaningful distinctions are:


Whigs are interested in making the system work, no matter who holds the dominate view at the time and stopping gridlock.
 
2013-11-07 10:44:03 AM
Wait, who doesn't want to do some coke, bang some hookers, and empty a belt fed weapon into some fluffy woodland creatures? Dull people, that's who.
 
2013-11-07 10:45:02 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: BMFPitt: Are you saying that you think the federal government should have unlimited power over everything, or just that you didn't understand what you were reading?

Limited within the scope of what is necessary at the time, up to and yes included unlimited should the republic need it

We fought that war already and settled this argument some time ago


People like you should terrify anyone who dislikes autocracy.
 
2013-11-07 10:45:26 AM

dwrash: I used to identify with the Libertarian Party... but I'm now more along the lines of the Modern Whig party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Whig


I was with you until this one...

 "Government should refrain from legislating morality."

What does this mean exactly?  No gay marriage?  No abortion or legal abortion?
 
2013-11-07 10:46:40 AM

JusticeandIndependence: I was with you until this one...

 "Government should refrain from legislating morality."

What does this mean exactly?  No gay marriage?  No abortion or legal abortion?


Such wording is almost always used to indicate a pro-choice, liberal position on those questions.
 
2013-11-07 10:48:40 AM
A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.
 
2013-11-07 10:48:55 AM

UNC_Samurai: kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!

I can't disagree.  I went through a dumb college libertarian phase.  Then I graduated and the real world slapped some sense into me.  Between wising up and watching the political spectrum around me being distorted, I'm now pretty damn liberal.


Late to the show, but this was pretty much my path as well.  As in, co-founding member of the largest Objectivist club in my city kind of libertarian.  And that was with another well-known ex-farker.  He's still got a hard on for it, too, and that has pretty much destroyed his life.
 
2013-11-07 10:49:08 AM

BMFPitt: IdBeCrazyIf: BMFPitt: Are you saying that you think the federal government should have unlimited power over everything, or just that you didn't understand what you were reading?

Limited within the scope of what is necessary at the time, up to and yes included unlimited should the republic need it

We fought that war already and settled this argument some time ago

People like you should terrify anyone who dislikes autocracy.


It's not as much an endorsement of autocracy as restating the problem, affirming the problem exists, and ending it at that.

Of course the government should have some power, but how do we decide what how much? That's the entire point of having representative government in the first place.
 
2013-11-07 10:50:32 AM

slayer199: The GOP establishment is afraid of growing libertarianism inside their party...so they're taking a break from attacking gays, women and Democrats to attack libertarianism.  Color me shocked.  Actually, it's good news for libertarians that they consider libertarianism a threat to the status quo.

It's a pretty simple philosophy:   Socially liberal, fiscally conservative (non-crony capitalism), and a more non-interventionist foreign policy.  The author doesn't understand it...and judging by the lefty responses in this thread...neither do most farkers.



It really does depend on which libertarian you ask.
devil is in the details I think....

what do you think of the EPA?

Go back to the gold standard? yes or no.
 
2013-11-07 10:50:58 AM

ikanreed: The only positive thing you can say about libertarianism is that it's internally consistent.  It's failings become obvious in any attempt to address a real-world issue.


QFT
 
2013-11-07 10:51:17 AM

super_grass: EWreckedSean: Wanting smaller, less intrusive government and supporting personal liberty. What a bunch of greedy cave dwellers.

The brand has been hijacked by people on the far right. Is Glenn Beck really a libertarian, or the socially conservative wing of the Tea Party?


It's a big tent term. Left libertarians, aka libertarian socialism, anarcho-communists will tell you that any right libertarian, aka anarco-capitalists, minarchists, are all fake libertarians.
 
2013-11-07 10:51:59 AM

karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.


That is the problem with libertarians.  Everything boils down to dollars and cents.  They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it.  The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops.  Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.
 
2013-11-07 10:52:05 AM
A Republican will pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

A Democrat will pee on your leg and tell you you're racist/sexist/plutocratic for objecting to having your leg peed on.

A Libertarian will tell you to move your farking leg out of the way before he pees.
 
2013-11-07 10:52:51 AM

karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics at a 3rd grade level in an Alabama public school.



FTFY
 
2013-11-07 10:53:00 AM

xalres: I put libertarianism up there with communism in the pantheon of BS political philosophies. Both fail for the same underlying reason, greed. Communism fails to take into account human greed and assumes everyone will be okay with sharing all the resources whereas libertarianism celebrates human greed and sociopathy and yet somehow assumes everything will turn out fine if we let these qualities run amok on a national scale.  We had a small taste of how a libertarian-style unregulated market would act with the sub-prime mortgage debacle and it almost broke the world economy. I shudder to think what would happen if we actually tried full implementation.

It's an interesting thought exercise but it quickly falls apart as a philosophy when subjected to even the slightest scrutiny.


There was nothing libertarian about the sub-prime mortgage debacle. Banking in the US is so intertwined with government it is disgusting.
 
2013-11-07 10:53:04 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/libertarianism-for-dummies/

Too long. Don't read.


Thanks, but your name at the top of the post is enough for me.
 
2013-11-07 10:53:56 AM

timujin: UNC_Samurai: kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!

I can't disagree.  I went through a dumb college libertarian phase.  Then I graduated and the real world slapped some sense into me.  Between wising up and watching the political spectrum around me being distorted, I'm now pretty damn liberal.

Late to the show, but this was pretty much my path as well.  As in, co-founding member of the largest Objectivist club in my city kind of libertarian.  And that was with another well-known ex-farker.  He's still got a hard on for it, too, and that has pretty much destroyed his life.


I think a lot of people went a route like this. Young people in the west haven't heard any real critical words about capitalism in decades, so you end up with lots who decide that some form of ultra-capitalism must be ultra-good. I was a bit of a libertarian type when I was younger, then I grew up and got a job. Sixteen years later and I've ended up all the way at the far left end.
 
2013-11-07 10:56:14 AM

Gulper Eel: A Republican will pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

A Democrat will pee on your leg and tell you you're racist/sexist/plutocratic for objecting to having your leg peed on.

A Libertarian will tell you to move your farking leg out of the way before he pees.


Notice all anecdotes about people who were libertarian until they grew up?  Now look at your post.  Look at it.
 
2013-11-07 10:56:20 AM

odinsposse: skullkrusher: Diogenes: Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?

Well, there's also the self-centeredness and sociopathy.

That's Randians

Randians are narcissists, not sociopaths. They believe society is just jealous of how extra special they are and so tries to keep them down. Libertarians are closer to sociopaths because they usually recognize that societal structures help some people but want to get rid of them because they don't personally benefit.


This is a false characterization. There is nothing to libertarianism which says it is immoral to help a stranger in need. In general terms, they just reject government being involved in that believing that the decision to help others should be left to the individual. Randians attach a moral wrong to assisting the "leeches".

Randians are the ones required by their philosophy to be self-centered. Not right(or left) libertarians
 
2013-11-07 10:56:39 AM

kxs401: BMFPitt: kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!

I'm 32, I have never smoked anything, I work for the federal government, and I want a properly sized nd scoped federal government.

So you think the war on drugs is a proper and effective use of resources, the government is always benevolent, and that power is always better centralized?

Now I can add to the list: people who don't understand words and ideas.


No, I get it. You are only referring to the craziest extreme, and you would like to keep it that way.

Do you believe that anyone who isn't a whackjob fundie isn't a member of a given religion?
 
2013-11-07 10:57:28 AM
unexplained bacon: slayer199: The GOP establishment is afraid of growing libertarianism inside their party...so they're taking a break from attacking gays, women and Democrats to attack libertarianism.  Color me shocked.  Actually, it's good news for libertarians that they consider libertarianism a threat to the status quo.

It's a pretty simple philosophy:   Socially liberal, fiscally conservative (non-crony capitalism), and a more non-interventionist foreign policy.  The author doesn't understand it...and judging by the lefty responses in this thread...neither do most farkers.


It really does depend on which libertarian you ask.
devil is in the details I think....

what do you think of the EPA?

Terrible idea as it exists currently. There is value perhaps in it being an advisory institution, but an un-elected government branch should have zero authority to regulate.

Go back to the gold standard? yes or no.

No, but it is hard to say that fiat money has been a success. Maybe best to go back to some form of commodities backed currency.
 
2013-11-07 10:58:25 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: Young people in the west haven't heard any real critical words about capitalism in decades


Are you kidding me? Any university with a worthwhile economics or social sciences department will do that. And I honestly doubt that kids outside of the west save for China gets a radically different treatment of capitalism.
 
2013-11-07 10:59:28 AM

Gulper Eel: A Republican will pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

A Democrat will pee on your leg and tell you you're racist/sexist/plutocratic for objecting to having your leg peed on.

A Libertarian will tell you to move your farking leg out of the way before he pees.


A Green will pee on you, and then plant an acorn on the wet spot on the ground.
 
2013-11-07 10:59:30 AM
Lemme alone!

You guys suck!

I'm taking my ball and bat and I'm going home!

/ What Libertarians sound like to the rest of us.
 
2013-11-07 10:59:54 AM

EWreckedSean: what do you think of the EPA?

Terrible idea as it exists currently. There is value perhaps in it being an advisory institution, but an un-elected government branch should have zero authority to regulate.


This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2013-11-07 10:59:59 AM
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-11-07 11:00:01 AM

Churchill2004: JusticeandIndependence: I was with you until this one...

 "Government should refrain from legislating morality."

What does this mean exactly?  No gay marriage?  No abortion or legal abortion?

Such wording is almost always used to indicate a pro-choice, liberal position on those questions.


Yup.. it's up to the individual.

Personally, I'd like to see marriage done away with (unregulated by government) and provide a contractual method to provide for the care of children and others along with estate matters.

The current laws were designed to protect women and to encourage the birth rate post world wars and is no longer needed.
 
2013-11-07 11:00:12 AM

EWreckedSean: xalres: I put libertarianism up there with communism in the pantheon of BS political philosophies. Both fail for the same underlying reason, greed. Communism fails to take into account human greed and assumes everyone will be okay with sharing all the resources whereas libertarianism celebrates human greed and sociopathy and yet somehow assumes everything will turn out fine if we let these qualities run amok on a national scale.  We had a small taste of how a libertarian-style unregulated market would act with the sub-prime mortgage debacle and it almost broke the world economy. I shudder to think what would happen if we actually tried full implementation.

It's an interesting thought exercise but it quickly falls apart as a philosophy when subjected to even the slightest scrutiny.

There was nothing libertarian about the sub-prime mortgage debacle. Banking in the US is so intertwined with government it is disgusting.


Yes they are intertwined but that situation led to a period of completely lax regulation. They saw an opportunity in foreign investors clamoring for mortgage backed securities but there weren't enough new mortgages being created to meet the demand. So they went about meeting that demand in the most short sighted and destructive way possible. Whatever the reasons for the government dropping the ball the situation was still one of free reign for the most part. It was as close to a "free market" as I've seen.
 
2013-11-07 11:00:43 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.


I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian
 
2013-11-07 11:01:32 AM
In the years since, that attitude has only grown. And what it means to be a Libertarian has blurred even more than before. So much so that a "Libertarian" candidate for governor in Virginia - many of whose views would disgust "real" Libertarians - pulled 7 percent in a race decided by much less pretty much solely on the strength of his party ID.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/134537/robert- sa rvis/#.Unu4q_nJY64

What views of his would disgust "real" libertarians?

I'm not even sure what the author is biatching about here?

(stolen from a thread yesterday: Yes, the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-pot legalization, anti-death penalty Libertarian candidate. The sound of Cuccinelli voters stampeding to him was deafening. "
 
2013-11-07 11:02:28 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Dancin_In_Anson: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/libertarianism-for-dummies/

Too long. Don't read.

Here's your problem, "Max Borders"

8. Myth: Libertarians agree on everything.
Here's a mini top ten list of things about which libertarians are fairly divided:
1.) Immigration
2.) Austrian or Chicago economics
3.) Abortion
4.) Origin of rights
5.) The status of children and teenagers
6.) War and pacifism
7.) Strategy of reform
8.) Tactics of reform
9.) Whether to compromise
10.) Intellectual property rights


They even disagree on what libertarianism is, I don't think they've exactly coalesced around the Max Bordersian definition.


They can't even agree if Hayek's wishy-washiness on this was appropriate.
 
2013-11-07 11:02:32 AM

EWreckedSean: It's a pretty simple philosophy: Socially liberal, fiscally conservative (non-crony capitalism), and a more non-interventionist foreign policy. The author doesn't understand it...and judging by the lefty responses in this thread...neither do most farkers.


In theory, the Tea Party is socially neutral and smaller government. In practice it is quite different. Most libertarians I know (I know, anecdotes) aren't so much socially liberal as they are leave me the fark alone. While I applaud that attitude in general, it means that in practice they think the civil rights act is wrong. They think you should absolutely be able to discriminate as much as you want.
 
2013-11-07 11:02:32 AM

justaguy516: I remember a friend who was a rabid libertarian. And then he had an autistic son born to him.


A true Libertarian would never have submitted to government-mandated vaccinations for his child.
 
2013-11-07 11:02:41 AM
Libertarians are fat guys with beards who envision themselves as heroic freedom fighters in possession of secret information about how the economy "really works" struggling against a faceless evil (the government). They're basically conspiracy LARPers.
 
2013-11-07 11:03:13 AM

EWreckedSean: unexplained bacon: slayer199: The GOP establishment is afraid of growing libertarianism inside their party...so they're taking a break from attacking gays, women and Democrats to attack libertarianism.  Color me shocked.  Actually, it's good news for libertarians that they consider libertarianism a threat to the status quo.

It's a pretty simple philosophy:   Socially liberal, fiscally conservative (non-crony capitalism), and a more non-interventionist foreign policy.  The author doesn't understand it...and judging by the lefty responses in this thread...neither do most farkers.


It really does depend on which libertarian you ask.
devil is in the details I think....

what do you think of the EPA?

Terrible idea as it exists currently. There is value perhaps in it being an advisory institution, but an un-elected government branch should have zero authority to regulate.

Go back to the gold standard? yes or no.

No, but it is hard to say that fiat money has been a success. Maybe best to go back to some form of commodities backed currency.


So, EPA minus any enforcement capability then? There goes all the gains we've made cleaning up our air, water and soil. Just say you want them gone next time.

...and basically you want to go back to the gold standard, except instead of gold you'd like to pick some other commodity, perhaps OJ or pork bellies? Try to get specific on that one, run this logic out for us.

Sorry I think you're ideas are as naive as they are terrible. That's why I stopped being a libertarian many years ago I guess.
 
2013-11-07 11:04:11 AM

KyngNothing: In the years since, that attitude has only grown. And what it means to be a Libertarian has blurred even more than before. So much so that a "Libertarian" candidate for governor in Virginia - many of whose views would disgust "real" Libertarians - pulled 7 percent in a race decided by much less pretty much solely on the strength of his party ID.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/134537/robert- sa rvis/#.Unu4q_nJY64

What views of his would disgust "real" libertarians?

I'm not even sure what the author is biatching about here?

(stolen from a thread yesterday: Yes, the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-pot legalization, anti-death penalty Libertarian candidate. The sound of Cuccinelli voters stampeding to him was deafening. "


That is PURE, uncut buttrage at the election spoiler. Which is ironic, given that the conservatives were SO sure that the Libertarian party will help sway voters away from the left just a few short years ago.
 
2013-11-07 11:04:19 AM

skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian


He is an anarchist.  I would say he is the last person that will trample your rights.  Me on the other hand,  I love the state.  I don't love the state as it exists now.  I mean the state is a tool used by the ruling class to oppress other classes.  Who is the ruling class? Capitalists.  Now,  I love the state in as much as I want the working class (the majority of the people) to control the state to oppress the ruling class (the capitalists).  It's only fair :)
 
2013-11-07 11:06:56 AM
For my libertarianism, I'm considered a liberal.  I think GOD should stay out of politics, I think the government should lightly regulate emergent order in the markets and society to prevent harm.  I believe that we have way more police, laws and lawyers than we need to protect people and property and some laws, police and lawyers are employed simply to enforce a power dynamic onto people who don't want it.

In other words, I'm a libertarian in that I believe that there IS a role for government.  Libertarians do believe this.  Where most libertarians fall down on their own beliefs is that they think that government in the real world can be this tiny thing tied only to local problems.  That is unrealistic bullshiat. The size of government is related to the size of the population and the issues it faces.  If some states hadn't systematically ignored their responsibility to educate it's citizens, there would be no department of education.  If some states hadn't been corrupted by corporations into ignoring the obvious effects of pollution there would be no EPA.  The FEDERAL government did fark up healthcare in the war years through employer sponsored healthcare being the only thing firms can compete on because of wage and price controls, but that was during a national crisis and Democrats have been trying to fix that shiat for 70 years now.  Drug policy has been insane for decades and should be radically changed. Universal access to affordable health care is the only real way to handle the problems drugs cause so that we can wind down the failed drug war (which is really about controlling brown people anyway).

So I am a libertarian.  Because of that, I vote for and support the Democrats.  They go too far at times, but they are working to make the government the correct size to handle the issues of the day and not some hypothetical size dictated by unsupportable models created to reach specific conclusions, and not based upon moralistic punishment of the lower class.

And fark the libertarian brony guy.  Dude, you have too much time on your hands if this stuff means that much to you.  Get a different hobby.
 
2013-11-07 11:07:28 AM

super_grass: BMFPitt: IdBeCrazyIf: BMFPitt: Are you saying that you think the federal government should have unlimited power over everything, or just that you didn't understand what you were reading?

Limited within the scope of what is necessary at the time, up to and yes included unlimited should the republic need it

We fought that war already and settled this argument some time ago

People like you should terrify anyone who dislikes autocracy.

It's not as much an endorsement of autocracy as restating the problem, affirming the problem exists, and ending it at that.

Of course the government should have some power, but how do we decide what how much? That's the entire point of having representative government in the first place.


The difference being that you seem content to let the government decide how much power it needs with a simple majority, and I think that any expansion in power must be carefully considered and thoroughly justified.

Is there nothing that the government does right now that you think it has no business doing?
 
2013-11-07 11:09:02 AM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


Please dear God tell me that is fake. I'm not certain I can live with the alternative.
 
2013-11-07 11:09:12 AM

kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!


All the Libertarians I know are Republicans too embarrassed after Bush's tenure to call themselves Republicans.
 
2013-11-07 11:09:20 AM
Libertarians are inexhaustible little golden retriever puppies.
 
2013-11-07 11:10:02 AM

BMFPitt: People like you should terrify anyone who dislikes autocracy.


There is of course a balance required and power must ebb and flow as necessary, however in certain extreme situations there are times where member states cannot be trusted to govern themselves despite the representative structure in place because their governance or lack there of threatens the republic at large.

Essentially self interest is trumped when it threatens the great societal whole.

We are basically at a point in our human collective history where we need to stop thinking individualistically and start thinking for the species.
 
2013-11-07 11:10:15 AM

super_grass: That is PURE, uncut buttrage at the election spoiler. Which is ironic, given that the conservatives were SO sure that the Libertarian party will help sway voters away from the left just a few short years ago


There's pretty convincing evidence that the Libertarian in this race pulled more otherwise-McAullife voters than otherwise-Cucinelli voters, by something like a 2:1 margin. Which just makes the GOP outrage about how Sarvis was a "Democratic plant" (based on some nonsense about a guy whose wife had given to Obama making a donation to a pro-LP PAC a year ago) even more incoherent. Cuccinelli should have debated Sarvis for the same reason Reagan debated Anderson.
 
2013-11-07 11:10:35 AM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

He is an anarchist.  I would say he is the last person that will trample your rights.  Me on the other hand,  I love the state.  I don't love the state as it exists now.  I mean the state is a tool used by the ruling class to oppress other classes.  Who is the ruling class? Capitalists.  Now,  I love the state in as much as I want the working class (the majority of the people) to control the state to oppress the ruling class (the capitalists).  It's only fair :)


He's an anarchist in his fantasies and when talking to his buddies to impress them. Deep down he knows that is bullshiat so he embraces government control over everything except vaginas
 
2013-11-07 11:10:58 AM

BMFPitt: No, I get it. You are only referring to the craziest extreme, and you would like to keep it that way.


Libertarianism IS a crazy extreme.

BMFPitt: Do you believe that anyone who isn't a whackjob fundie isn't a member of a given religion?


What?
 
2013-11-07 11:11:48 AM

xalres: EWreckedSean: xalres: I put libertarianism up there with communism in the pantheon of BS political philosophies. Both fail for the same underlying reason, greed. Communism fails to take into account human greed and assumes everyone will be okay with sharing all the resources whereas libertarianism celebrates human greed and sociopathy and yet somehow assumes everything will turn out fine if we let these qualities run amok on a national scale.  We had a small taste of how a libertarian-style unregulated market would act with the sub-prime mortgage debacle and it almost broke the world economy. I shudder to think what would happen if we actually tried full implementation.

It's an interesting thought exercise but it quickly falls apart as a philosophy when subjected to even the slightest scrutiny.

There was nothing libertarian about the sub-prime mortgage debacle. Banking in the US is so intertwined with government it is disgusting.

Yes they are intertwined but that situation led to a period of completely lax regulation. They saw an opportunity in foreign investors clamoring for mortgage backed securities but there weren't enough new mortgages being created to meet the demand. So they went about meeting that demand in the most short sighted and destructive way possible. Whatever the reasons for the government dropping the ball the situation was still one of free reign for the most part. It was as close to a "free market" as I've seen.


You are looking at one small piece and saying see it is libertarian! That's like taking the bacon out of turducken and calling it vegetarian.
 
2013-11-07 11:13:37 AM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

He is an anarchist.  I would say he is the last person that will trample your rights.  Me on the other hand,  I love the state.  I don't love the state as it exists now.  I mean the state is a tool used by the ruling class to oppress other classes.  Who is the ruling class? Capitalists.  Now,  I love the state in as much as I want the working class (the majority of the people) to control the state to oppress the ruling class (the capitalists).  It's only fair :)


skullkrusher is your basic model libertarian. He believes that a government that is composed only of the organs of state violence and is only empowered to act enforce capitalism and act as an enforcement arm for the rich is "liberty", while a system of horizontal democracy that actually does allow for real liberty is "uber-statist".
 
2013-11-07 11:14:28 AM

lockers: EWreckedSean: It's a pretty simple philosophy: Socially liberal, fiscally conservative (non-crony capitalism), and a more non-interventionist foreign policy. The author doesn't understand it...and judging by the lefty responses in this thread...neither do most farkers.

In theory, the Tea Party is socially neutral and smaller government. In practice it is quite different. Most libertarians I know (I know, anecdotes) aren't so much socially liberal as they are leave me the fark alone. While I applaud that attitude in general, it means that in practice they think the civil rights act is wrong. They think you should absolutely be able to discriminate as much as you want.


I tend to agree with them on that one, if we are discussing private business. Government has an obligation to treat all people equally, individuals and private entities don't.
 
2013-11-07 11:15:02 AM
I'm smoking marijuana, banging a hooker and staying totally uninvolved in foreign wars right now, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2013-11-07 11:15:23 AM

FarkedOver: That is the problem with libertarians. Everything boils down to dollars and cents. They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it. The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops. Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.


Horseshiat.

Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.
 
2013-11-07 11:15:32 AM
I recently met a guy so libertarian that he doesn't think any kind of weapon should be banned from personal ownership. And he doesn't believe felons should be prevented from buying weapons.
 
2013-11-07 11:15:59 AM
an un-elected government branch should have zero authority to regulate.

wowwww
 
2013-11-07 11:16:01 AM

Gulper Eel: A Republican will pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

A Democrat will pee on your leg and tell you you're racist/sexist/plutocratic for objecting to having your leg peed on.

A Libertarian will tell you to move your farking leg out of the way before he pees pee whereever the fark he wants, and if you don't like it then you can pay him to stop.


// the Coase theorem isn't a guideline for living your life
 
2013-11-07 11:16:11 AM
The libertarians don't even do the weed thing right, look at NH it's the only state in the northeast where pot is totally illegal.
 
2013-11-07 11:16:31 AM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

He is an anarchist.  I would say he is the last person that will trample your rights.  Me on the other hand,  I love the state.  I don't love the state as it exists now.  I mean the state is a tool used by the ruling class to oppress other classes.  Who is the ruling class? Capitalists.  Now,  I love the state in as much as I want the working class (the majority of the people) to control the state to oppress the ruling class (the capitalists).  It's only fair :)


But then the working class becomes the ruling class oppressing the lower classes, which means the Capitalists must rise up from their oppression to overthrow the working class, but....
 
2013-11-07 11:17:17 AM

Diogenes: justaguy516: I remember a friend who was a rabid libertarian. And then he had an autistic son born to him.

A true Libertarian would never have submitted to government-mandated vaccinations for his child.


I realize you're being snarky but there is a strong libertarian presence in the alternative medicine movement ranging from folks who want to remove all regulations to conspiracy kooks who believe doctors are conspiring with government to keep "real" cures from the public.
 
2013-11-07 11:17:54 AM

unexplained bacon: EWreckedSean: unexplained bacon: slayer199: The GOP establishment is afraid of growing libertarianism inside their party...so they're taking a break from attacking gays, women and Democrats to attack libertarianism.  Color me shocked.  Actually, it's good news for libertarians that they consider libertarianism a threat to the status quo.

It's a pretty simple philosophy:   Socially liberal, fiscally conservative (non-crony capitalism), and a more non-interventionist foreign policy.  The author doesn't understand it...and judging by the lefty responses in this thread...neither do most farkers.


It really does depend on which libertarian you ask.
devil is in the details I think....

what do you think of the EPA?

Terrible idea as it exists currently. There is value perhaps in it being an advisory institution, but an un-elected government branch should have zero authority to regulate.

Go back to the gold standard? yes or no.

No, but it is hard to say that fiat money has been a success. Maybe best to go back to some form of commodities backed currency.

So, EPA minus any enforcement capability then? There goes all the gains we've made cleaning up our air, water and soil. Just say you want them gone next time.

...and basically you want to go back to the gold standard, except instead of gold you'd like to pick some other commodity, perhaps OJ or pork bellies? Try to get specific on that one, run this logic out for us.

Sorry I think you're ideas are as naive as they are terrible. That's why I stopped being a libertarian many years ago I guess.


I want an EPA that can't create laws. When they create bad laws, there is little recourse. And by the way, the single biggest polluter by far the federal government.

As for commodities backed money, why do you have to pick one?
 
2013-11-07 11:19:12 AM

Headso: The libertarians don't even do the weed thing right, look at NH it's the only state in the northeast where pot is totally illegal.


You mean the state where various medical/decrim laws, passed by the GOP majority legislature on a split-party vote, were repeatedly vetoed and weakened by Democratic governors? They did finally manage to get through some form of medical passed and signed, though, so NH is not out-of-line with the rest of New England in that regard anymore.
 
2013-11-07 11:20:12 AM
Two things:

Firstly: That's a big old font they got over there.

Secondly:

They went from the movement for individual responsibility, small government and free markets to a gaggle of misfits who want pot and prostitution legalized and a total non-interventionist foreign policy.

I like how he slags off Libertarians for not being constructive yet his idea of the Halcyon days of Libertarianism are the meaningless buzz-declarations of "small govt and personal responsibility".

....At least legalising pot and prostitution is... yknow... a thing
 
2013-11-07 11:21:58 AM

Gulper Eel: FarkedOver: That is the problem with libertarians. Everything boils down to dollars and cents. They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it. The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops. Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

Horseshiat.

Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.


No it would look more like WIC with a greater variety of healthy food choices. But this would be even more expensive and I seriously doubt any Republican or Libertarian would support it. The problem is there solution is to cut off everyone entirely.
 
2013-11-07 11:22:47 AM
There should be their. Ack need more coffee.
 
2013-11-07 11:23:48 AM

Candy Colored Clown: Thanks, but your name at the top of the post is enough for me


Ignorance is bliss eh?
 
2013-11-07 11:23:55 AM

Gulper Eel: Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.


That processed food is actually cheaper than fresh healthy food. The reason people buy it is it provides more calories per dollar spent. We could limit it to just unprocessed foods, but it would either be more expensive or force people to, ironically, be less healthy through starvation. Of course this is a red herring, your real point is that poor people should be punished for the crime of being poor.
 
2013-11-07 11:24:14 AM
Libertarian really has sort of morphed into the "no moral judgment" party.
 
2013-11-07 11:25:09 AM

Gulper Eel: FarkedOver: That is the problem with libertarians. Everything boils down to dollars and cents. They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it. The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops. Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

Horseshiat.

Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.


So your big issue with the "left" is that a centrist solution compromised by the capitalist right is inadequate? Farking really? Well, guess what: We agree with you.
 
2013-11-07 11:26:06 AM

skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian


We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.
 
2013-11-07 11:28:00 AM

plewis: So I am a libertarian. Because of that, I vote for and support the Democrats.


That's something that'll depend on your local political environment. If I lived someplace like Oklahoma, I'd support Democrats too - but I live in ever-dysfunctional New York. There has been no meaningful small-government movement in this state for over 50 years, and it shows. Cuomo has toured the state halfheartedly calling for some governments to consolidate, but his consolidation is a one-way street sending more power to the crooks in Albany. Wall Streeters paying their tax bills is the only thing keeping the state from going full Detroit - so naturally the NYC politicians who dominate the show go to great lengths to one-up each other on who's supposedly going to be more badass about sticking it to The ManTM,
 
2013-11-07 11:28:02 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: So your big issue with the "left" is that a centrist solution compromised by the capitalist right is inadequate? Farking really? Well, guess what: We agree with you.


I know right, its pretty similar to the argument we had over Healthcare reform, where as now all they scream is "Everyone hates Obamacare!".

Yeah, we know, we're not big fans of it either. But really if we had our way we'd just go medicare for all central system with buy in but but but socialisms or something right?
 
2013-11-07 11:28:09 AM

FarkedOver: Anyone who thinks that Mises or Rothbard were awesome people should be sterilized. Immediately.


As long as it's not retroactive. Or I would never have been born.
 
2013-11-07 11:28:26 AM

EWreckedSean: xalres: EWreckedSean: xalres: I put libertarianism up there with communism in the pantheon of BS political philosophies. Both fail for the same underlying reason, greed. Communism fails to take into account human greed and assumes everyone will be okay with sharing all the resources whereas libertarianism celebrates human greed and sociopathy and yet somehow assumes everything will turn out fine if we let these qualities run amok on a national scale.  We had a small taste of how a libertarian-style unregulated market would act with the sub-prime mortgage debacle and it almost broke the world economy. I shudder to think what would happen if we actually tried full implementation.

It's an interesting thought exercise but it quickly falls apart as a philosophy when subjected to even the slightest scrutiny.

There was nothing libertarian about the sub-prime mortgage debacle. Banking in the US is so intertwined with government it is disgusting.

Yes they are intertwined but that situation led to a period of completely lax regulation. They saw an opportunity in foreign investors clamoring for mortgage backed securities but there weren't enough new mortgages being created to meet the demand. So they went about meeting that demand in the most short sighted and destructive way possible. Whatever the reasons for the government dropping the ball the situation was still one of free reign for the most part. It was as close to a "free market" as I've seen.

You are looking at one small piece and saying see it is libertarian! That's like taking the bacon out of turducken and calling it vegetarian.


Considering the hard-on libertarians have for free, unencumbered, unregulated markets I'd call it a pretty damn big piece. Playing "no true Scotsman" won't change the fact that, left to their own devices, companies will burn the world to the ground if it means they can make a buck.
 
2013-11-07 11:29:54 AM

Diogenes: vygramul: I guess Republicans are going to spend some time blaming Sarvis and Libertarians for farking up America.

You say that like you're surprised their MO hasn't changed.

Introspection?  Never.  Attack?  Of course.


Good.

That makes it harder for denialicans to vote GOP and still say, "I'm a non-partisan libertarian."
 
2013-11-07 11:30:07 AM
Libertarian (n): A selfish self-righteous prick who has deluded himself into thinking that he can take from society, but is under no obligation to give back to it.
 
2013-11-07 11:30:43 AM
stblogs.streetchopperweb.com

Recoil Magazine - When your penis is that small, accept no substitutes.
 
2013-11-07 11:30:43 AM

ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.


It's totally different than the old systems of nobility, though. In theory the old nobles had significant responsibility to the people and the country. In Libertarian Land they would be constitutionally disallowed from having or demonstrating anything of the like, which is better because potato.
 
2013-11-07 11:32:18 AM

lockers: In theory, the Tea Party is socially neutral and smaller government. In practice it is quite different. Most libertarians I know (I know, anecdotes) aren't so much socially liberal as they are leave me the fark alone. While I applaud that attitude in general, it means that in practice they think the civil rights act is wrong. They think you should absolutely be able to discriminate as much as you want.


I don't think that's quite accurate in terms of libertarians.  Most libertarians I know (and speaking as a libertarian) are both.  Leave me the fark alone while being socially liberal (supporting gay marriage, etc.0   In theory, I don't think civil rights should be necessary as everyone should be treated equally.  In practice, I believe it to be necessary at times and abused at times.  The flip side of that as a private citizen, you can hold any stupid racist, sexist or homophobic viewpoint you like....so long as you don't infringe on the freedom of others.  Your rights to express those beliefs ends with restricting the freedom of another individual.

The problem libertarians have is inherent flaw of granting more power to the federal government.  It's like a scale.  The more power you give to the federal government, the fewer freedoms the individual has.  This is why I take exception to both the Democratic and Republican parties.  They both want to increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty...albeit from different angles.  The federal government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, NOT to usurp it.
 
2013-11-07 11:33:05 AM

cc_rider: Sideburns. Weird-ass sideburns.

[i28.photobucket.com image 640x360][i28.photobucket.com image 300x318]


Came for pics of that assclown.

/Leaving satisfied.
 
2013-11-07 11:33:28 AM

Gulper Eel: A Republican will pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

A Democrat will pee on your leg and tell you you're racist/sexist/plutocratic for objecting to having your leg peed on.

A Libertarian will tell you to move your farking leg out of the way before he pees.Pee on your leg and demand that you sue him for damages if you feel that having your clothes peed on is a violation of your property rights, and then deny the legitimacy of the court that the hearing is held in because he didn't personally consent to having the conflict resolved in that fashion in an attempt to draw out the proceedings until you're bankrupt from trying to get your pissy pants, socks, and shoes replaced.

 
2013-11-07 11:34:51 AM
Libertarianism works perfectly fine as a political ideology, so long as:

1) Population density is low
2) People can self-select into a homogeneous, like-minded group with little or no societal friction with other groups.
3) The population never lets any one person get too powerful, either by self-limitation by individuals, strong social controls (like eschewing of wealth and banishment), or population control (exile).

None of those qualities exist in the modern world anywhere, except in remote regions where almost no one lives anyway.  You will note that most libertarians live in such an environment.  Heinlein's books happen under those conditions (mostly thinking of Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Time Enough for Love).  The end of Atlas Shruggedis just such a situation.  Even the popular proponents internally realize these preconditions.

- Externalities become more severe the more people they affect.
- Externalities become more severe with proximity, whether social, environmental, etc.
- Most people want to be left alone and go about their lives.

Therefore, the greater the population density, the less "positive" freedom you can have (i.e. freedom to do things), because "negative freedoms" of the 10,000 people around you start to outweigh your positive freedoms.
 
2013-11-07 11:35:08 AM

Diogenes: Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?

Well, there's also the self-centeredness and sociopathy.


I was thinking more about the NeoFeudalistic wing that supports Corporatism as an article of faith, because they REALLY want to be inside the walls when the ravening hordes come for their stuff.
 
2013-11-07 11:35:21 AM
Not sure why most everyone thinks it had to be all or nothing.

I'm more libertarian in some political views.

I think legalizing drugs would go a long way in reducing all types of crime And could reduce taxes.

Not being the world police could free up some money for social programs.

I think there a lot of room for consensus and compromise.

I'd be all in for single payer healthcare if the Dems drop gun control.

I'd be all in for raising min wage if dems And repubs drop all these free trade agreements.

Ect, ect.
 
2013-11-07 11:35:55 AM

slayer199: The more power you give to the federal government, the fewer freedoms the individual has


I've often asked this question of libertarians and I can never get a straight answer.

What truly gives a person their freedoms?
 
2013-11-07 11:36:21 AM

xalres: I put libertarianism up there with communism in the pantheon of BS political philosophies. Both fail for the same underlying reason, greed. Communism fails to take into account human greed and assumes everyone will be okay with sharing all the resources whereas libertarianism celebrates human greed and sociopathy and yet somehow assumes everything will turn out fine if we let these qualities run amok on a national scale.  We had a small taste of how a libertarian-style unregulated market would act with the sub-prime mortgage debacle and it almost broke the world economy. I shudder to think what would happen if we actually tried full implementation.

It's an interesting thought exercise but it quickly falls apart as a philosophy when subjected to even the slightest scrutiny.


Not so much greed but human nature that ideologies like Libertarianism, Communism and Conservativism never take into effect (or they do and just ignore it).  Even theologically based governments like Iran's completely fail because they either don't take into account what greed, ambition or a lack of self-control do to people or just ignore it believing that people will just fall in line.   Think about it:  Iran deposed the Shah and his totalitarian rule; now they have a government no different than what they had with the Shah but now backed by religious edicts.

It's also funny how religious RWers all talk about how Iran's so evil but yet (secretly) envy the power, control and influence the mullahs have over the populace.
 
2013-11-07 11:36:40 AM

Fart_Machine: Gulper Eel: FarkedOver: That is the problem with libertarians. Everything boils down to dollars and cents. They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it. The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops. Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

Horseshiat.

Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.

No it would look more like WIC with a greater variety of healthy food choices. But this would be even more expensive and I seriously doubt any Republican or Libertarian would support it. The problem is there solution is to cut off everyone entirely.


GE also doesn't seem to understand that the vaunted Free Market has dictated that poor people don't generally have access to quality grocery stores where they can purchase healthy, safe food.  For the most part they don't have the time or money to travel across town (or across the county for the rural welfare recipients) or at least out of the food deserts, to shop at a decent supermarket.
 
2013-11-07 11:36:57 AM

ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.


Oh wait... You're one of them too? That explains a lot. My preferred authority is not the rich, however. Assumptions and categorizations do make things a bit easier on the old gulliver though, huh?
 
2013-11-07 11:37:13 AM

EWreckedSean: I want an EPA that can't create laws. When they create bad laws, there is little recourse. And by the way, the single biggest polluter by far the federal government.


This is the real problem with how these agencies are created.  The creation of laws should reside with Congress and Congress alone....no agency should have cart blanche to make up their own rules which have the force of law.  You can look at many federal agencies and see the same problem (FDA, FCC, etc).
 
2013-11-07 11:37:16 AM

lockers: That processed food is actually cheaper than fresh healthy food. The reason people buy it is it provides more calories per dollar spent. We could limit it to just unprocessed foods, but it would either be more expensive or force people to, ironically, be less healthy through starvation. Of course this is a red herring, your real point is that poor people should be punished for the crime of being poor.


1/10.

I would rather replace a program like SNAP with a food program - straight-up deliveries of nutritious ingredients and staples as is necessary, plus more soup kitchens and pantries. Saves time for the recipients, no need for asset checks...and if done right, it shows people that government can be competent far better than anybody in a social-services office trying to figure out who's been swapping out their SNAP card for booze and smokes.

I'm assuming that the government workers who administer the program are really in it out of compassion and their innate goodness as government workers, and so they won't mind in the least working in neighborhoods more rough-and-tumble than the suburbs they commute to from their office jobs.
 
2013-11-07 11:37:40 AM

Gulper Eel: Horseshiat.

Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.


The solution is obvious then.... if you cannot afford to eat you simply do not eat.
 
2013-11-07 11:37:44 AM
You will note that most libertarian  characters live in such an environment.  Heinlein's books happen under those conditions (mostly thinking of Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Time Enough for Love).  The end of Atlas Shrugged is just such a situation.  Even the popular proponents internally realize these preconditions.

FTFM.
 
2013-11-07 11:38:55 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

He is an anarchist.  I would say he is the last person that will trample your rights.  Me on the other hand,  I love the state.  I don't love the state as it exists now.  I mean the state is a tool used by the ruling class to oppress other classes.  Who is the ruling class? Capitalists.  Now,  I love the state in as much as I want the working class (the majority of the people) to control the state to oppress the ruling class (the capitalists).  It's only fair :)

skullkrusher is your basic model libertarian. He believes that a government that is composed only of the organs of state violence and is only empowered to act enforce capitalism and act as an enforcement arm for the rich is "liberty", while a system of horizontal democracy that actually does allow for real liberty is "uber-statist".


No I don't but you brag about being a farking anarcho socialist so higher thought cannot be reasonably expected of you
 
2013-11-07 11:39:10 AM

Gulper Eel: trying to figure out who's been swapping out their SNAP card for booze and smokes.


Red herring, the Food Nutrition program with SNAP and WIC have the lowest fraud amount of any federal program, this includes the Department of Defense.
 
2013-11-07 11:40:16 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: timujin: UNC_Samurai: kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!

I can't disagree.  I went through a dumb college libertarian phase.  Then I graduated and the real world slapped some sense into me.  Between wising up and watching the political spectrum around me being distorted, I'm now pretty damn liberal.

Late to the show, but this was pretty much my path as well.  As in, co-founding member of the largest Objectivist club in my city kind of libertarian.  And that was with another well-known ex-farker.  He's still got a hard on for it, too, and that has pretty much destroyed his life.

I think a lot of people went a route like this. Young people in the west haven't heard any real critical words about capitalism in decades, so you end up with lots who decide that some form of ultra-capitalism must be ultra-good. I was a bit of a libertarian type when I was younger, then I grew up and got a job. Sixteen years later and I've ended up all the way at the far left end.


I ended up somewhat to the left economically, but very liberal and while I can see where left libertarianism makes sense philosophically as concentrating too much power in any set of hands (private or public) is not ideal, in a practical sense the only real way to rein in the power of corporations is to have a relatively powerful government, which at least has to respond to public pressure to a reasonable extent in regulating and limiting their worst abuses. Obviously it is far from ideal, but "Never let perfect become the enemy of the good" or whatever the phrase is.
 
2013-11-07 11:41:28 AM

slayer199: lockers: In theory, the Tea Party is socially neutral and smaller government. In practice it is quite different. Most libertarians I know (I know, anecdotes) aren't so much socially liberal as they are leave me the fark alone. While I applaud that attitude in general, it means that in practice they think the civil rights act is wrong. They think you should absolutely be able to discriminate as much as you want.

I don't think that's quite accurate in terms of libertarians.  Most libertarians I know (and speaking as a libertarian) are both.  Leave me the fark alone while being socially liberal (supporting gay marriage, etc.0   In theory, I don't think civil rights should be necessary as everyone should be treated equally.  In practice, I believe it to be necessary at times and abused at times.  The flip side of that as a private citizen, you can hold any stupid racist, sexist or homophobic viewpoint you like....so long as you don't infringe on the freedom of others.  Your rights to express those beliefs ends with restricting the freedom of another individual.

The problem libertarians have is inherent flaw of granting more power to the federal government.  It's like a scale.  The more power you give to the federal government, the fewer freedoms the individual has.  This is why I take exception to both the Democratic and Republican parties.  They both want to increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty...albeit from different angles.  The federal government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, NOT to usurp it.


Problem: most of the government's power comes from the necessity of ensuring that one person or group isn't restricting the freedom of another.  When libertarians seek to remove that "power" they - unintentionally, for the most part - are working to ensure that some people don't have the same freedom as others.
 
2013-11-07 11:41:37 AM

AdmirableSnackbar: Fart_Machine: Gulper Eel: FarkedOver: That is the problem with libertarians. Everything boils down to dollars and cents. They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it. The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops. Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

Horseshiat.

Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.

No it would look more like WIC with a greater variety of healthy food choices. But this would be even more expensive and I seriously doubt any Republican or Libertarian would support it. The problem is there solution is to cut off everyone entirely.

GE also doesn't seem to understand that the vaunted Free Market has dictated that poor people don't generally have access to quality grocery stores where they can purchase healthy, safe food.  For the most part they don't have the time or money to travel across town (or across the county for the rural welfare recipients) or at least out of the food deserts, to shop at a decent supermarket.


But if gummint regulations weren't so oppressive, an entrepreneur could just move to those impoverished areas and open up a low cost natural grocery store! Without zoning and health regulations and a minimum wage, that business could get started at a price that could be afforded by the people there.

Obviously since no one has poor people are too stupid to know how good natural food is and should be left to die.
 
2013-11-07 11:41:42 AM

xalres: EWreckedSean: xalres: EWreckedSean: xalres: I put libertarianism up there with communism in the pantheon of BS political philosophies. Both fail for the same underlying reason, greed. Communism fails to take into account human greed and assumes everyone will be okay with sharing all the resources whereas libertarianism celebrates human greed and sociopathy and yet somehow assumes everything will turn out fine if we let these qualities run amok on a national scale.  We had a small taste of how a libertarian-style unregulated market would act with the sub-prime mortgage debacle and it almost broke the world economy. I shudder to think what would happen if we actually tried full implementation.

It's an interesting thought exercise but it quickly falls apart as a philosophy when subjected to even the slightest scrutiny.

There was nothing libertarian about the sub-prime mortgage debacle. Banking in the US is so intertwined with government it is disgusting.

Yes they are intertwined but that situation led to a period of completely lax regulation. They saw an opportunity in foreign investors clamoring for mortgage backed securities but there weren't enough new mortgages being created to meet the demand. So they went about meeting that demand in the most short sighted and destructive way possible. Whatever the reasons for the government dropping the ball the situation was still one of free reign for the most part. It was as close to a "free market" as I've seen.

You are looking at one small piece and saying see it is libertarian! That's like taking the bacon out of turducken and calling it vegetarian.

Considering the hard-on libertarians have for free, unencumbered, unregulated markets I'd call it a pretty damn big piece. Playing "no true Scotsman" won't change the fact that, left to their own devices, companies will burn the world to the ground if it means they can make a buck.


This isn't no true scotsman, it is calling massive corporatism, that is intertwined with government at every level, suddenly libertarian when the farking federal reserve pushes policies that limit certain regulations. That in no way makes it libertarian. Sorry.
 
2013-11-07 11:42:32 AM

skullkrusher: No I don't but you brag about being a farking anarcho socialist so higher thought cannot be reasonably expected of you


I'm a socialist filthy red marxist.  What I want, I will attempt to put into capitalist terms.  I want to maximize my profit.  I am effectively selling my labor power at a loss.  As a capitalist, this cannot stand.  I mention this to my other capitalist co-workers.  I let them know, we are all selling our labor at a loss.  We decide together..... (collectively, if you will...ohhh i know it's a dirty word!) that the only way in which we can stop selling our labor power at a loss is to take over the means of production ourselves.
 
2013-11-07 11:42:37 AM

slayer199: EWreckedSean: I want an EPA that can't create laws. When they create bad laws, there is little recourse. And by the way, the single biggest polluter by far the federal government.

This is the real problem with how these agencies are created.  The creation of laws should reside with Congress and Congress alone....no agency should have cart blanche to make up their own rules which have the force of law.  You can look at many federal agencies and see the same problem (FDA, FCC, etc).


That would require studious legislatures truly knowing the intricacy of multiple fields of study and expertise, and not just a bunch of lawyers and politicians.

The reason lobbyists and life-long civil servants have such a large impact on the government is they are the only ones who actually know about their industries and sectors.
 
2013-11-07 11:43:27 AM

slayer199: lockers: In theory, the Tea Party is socially neutral and smaller government. In practice it is quite different. Most libertarians I know (I know, anecdotes) aren't so much socially liberal as they are leave me the fark alone. While I applaud that attitude in general, it means that in practice they think the civil rights act is wrong. They think you should absolutely be able to discriminate as much as you want.

I don't think that's quite accurate in terms of libertarians.  Most libertarians I know (and speaking as a libertarian) are both.  Leave me the fark alone while being socially liberal (supporting gay marriage, etc.0   In theory, I don't think civil rights should be necessary as everyone should be treated equally.  In practice, I believe it to be necessary at times and abused at times.  The flip side of that as a private citizen, you can hold any stupid racist, sexist or homophobic viewpoint you like....so long as you don't infringe on the freedom of others.  Your rights to express those beliefs ends with restricting the freedom of another individual.

The problem libertarians have is inherent flaw of granting more power to the federal government.  It's like a scale.  The more power you give to the federal government, the fewer freedoms the individual has.  This is why I take exception to both the Democratic and Republican parties.  They both want to increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty...albeit from different angles.  The federal government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, NOT to usurp it.


The idea that the federal government exist to protect and defend individual freedom is a mythical fantasy. The reason we have a federal government is to govern the states. We, thankfully, included the bill of rights to limit how it can govern. Make no mistake, as passed, the constitution limited the government from taking your liberties in no way. We had to amend it to get those liberties that we enumerated. It wasn't even till the reformation that we even applied those rights to individual states. It took a civil war and abolishment to guarentee states respected individual liberty. Think on that a minute.
 
2013-11-07 11:43:50 AM
Economics textbooks used to use a latin phrase "Caeteris Paribus" when talking about theoretical constructs such as the "laffer curve" (Invented by Ibn Khaldun and later attributed by Laffer to Keynes) that are not meant to be taken as a literal representation of how the world works, but rather as a device to demonstrate where the optimal tax rate is relative to the economy and government income.

The latin phrase means essentially "All things being equal." Unfortunately for libertarians, these models, just as advertised do not include the behavior of people in the real world in their calculations, and are therefore fundamentally flawed.

Being not bright enough to understand theoretical economics discussions is no basis for a system of government. Or on the other side of this argument, if some libertarian zero tax goon can prove that they have actually calculated the apex of the laffer curve, I invite them to come forward and claim their Nobel Prize in economics. Until then, I suppose, they can continue to burden the rest of us with their purely self interested quest to gargle on the ball sacks of hedge fund billionaires.
 
2013-11-07 11:44:57 AM

BMFPitt: No, I get it. You are only referring to the craziest extreme, and you would like to keep it that way.


Says the person who went "OH, so you think the government should have UNLIMITED POWER?!"

Physician, heal thyself.
 
2013-11-07 11:45:22 AM
drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up

So, a typical day on Fark?
 
2013-11-07 11:47:31 AM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: No I don't but you brag about being a farking anarcho socialist so higher thought cannot be reasonably expected of you

I'm a socialist filthy red marxist.  What I want, I will attempt to put into capitalist terms.  I want to maximize my profit.  I am effectively selling my labor power at a loss.  As a capitalist, this cannot stand.  I mention this to my other capitalist co-workers.  I let them know, we are all selling our labor at a loss.  We decide together..... (collectively, if you will...ohhh i know it's a dirty word!) that the only way in which we can stop selling our labor power at a loss is to take over the means of production ourselves.


Yeah but you like good scotch and bosoms so I can't quit you. Rest of these farks are joyless hand wringers.

Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.
Then you can make everyone you hire a partner in the business. You won't and will prefer to get rich off of their rent but you technically COULD do that ;)
 
2013-11-07 11:48:13 AM

Gulper Eel: 1/10


Cute. You are a moron if you think I am arguing from a dishonest place or seeking to provoke you.

Gulper Eel: I would rather replace a program like SNAP with a food program - straight-up deliveries of nutritious ingredients and staples as is necessary, plus more soup kitchens and pantries. Saves time for the recipients, no need for asset checks...and if done right, it shows people that government can be competent far better than anybody in a social-services office trying to figure out who's been swapping out their SNAP card for booze and smokes.


Poor people don't deserve choice, gotcha. You restate exactly what I said, your argument isn't that SNAP is flawed, it's that it doesn't punish the sin of being poor.
 
2013-11-07 11:48:49 AM

skullkrusher: ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.

Oh wait... You're one of them too? That explains a lot. My preferred authority is not the rich, however. Assumptions and categorizations do make things a bit easier on the old gulliver though, huh?


I have highlighted your lie.  You believe money=deserved power.  That's inherent to libertarian philosophy.
 
2013-11-07 11:48:56 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.

It's totally different than the old systems of nobility, though. In theory the old nobles had significant responsibility to the people and the country. In Libertarian Land they would be constitutionally disallowed from having or demonstrating anything of the like, which is better because potato.


Worth mentioning most libertarians misuse the word authoritarian, which is not just any authority.  Authoritarians are ends in themselves, and thus illegitimate.  Strong men and the like, not democratic governments.    What they're really talking about is totalitarianism, which is legitimate power but oppressive, which democracies can certainly become..  Authoritarian powers can be benevolent for example -- and they often are with their tribe or kin group that underpins their power.

Libertarians like to pretend it's the opposite of authoritarianism, but it's really not.  Indeed the unrestrained struggle for indivudal power is often the root of authoritarian systems -- be it Henry Ford or Saddam Hussein.  Everyone is an underling in service to their ambitions.  Totalitarian systems like the Soviet Union are much more nebulous and bureaucratic and pretty much quash everyone and everything within it.  Even its leaders are subservient to the internal logic of the system.
 
2013-11-07 11:49:45 AM

skullkrusher: Yeah but you like good scotch and bosoms so I can't quit you. Rest of these farks are joyless hand wringers.

Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.
Then you can make everyone you hire a partner in the business. You won't and will prefer to get rich off of their rent but you technically COULD do that ;)


I have no problem stealing from someone that has stolen the fruits of my labor.

/good to see you around.  It's been a while, hope all is well my friend.
 
2013-11-07 11:52:58 AM
Gulper Eel: I would rather replace a program like SNAP with a food program - straight-up deliveries of nutritious ingredients and staples as is necessary, plus more soup kitchens and pantries. Saves time for the recipients, no need for asset checks...and if done right, it shows people that government can be competent far better than anybody in a social-services office trying to figure out who's been swapping out their SNAP card for booze and smokes.

Soup kitchens and pantries, which being brick and mortar locations with staffs and whatnot would require much more overhead than just issuing SNAP cards and centrally managing them from one office with a data center attached. Meaning no, even from a libertaritron perspective your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

But hey, it punishes poor people more, so it's got that going for it.

/BSAB
 
2013-11-07 11:53:19 AM
EWreckedSean:

This isn't no true scotsman, it is calling massive corporatism, that is intertwined with government at every level, suddenly libertarian when the farking federal reserve pushes policies that limit certain regulations. That in no way makes it libertarian. Sorry.

Libertarianism leads to corporatism, numb nuts.  Without a strong government, it cannot stand against against even more powerful influences, namely the wealthy capitalists and corporations, which then have undue influence in government via either campaign contributions at the top, or influence over the populace.

A political and economic system can be judged on how resilient it is to corrupting influences and decay by those who don't give a shiat about sustaining it.  Libertarianism, both big and little 'l', fail miserably at this metric, and is only pushed either by those who know this, and want to corrupt the system further, or the naive.  Which are you?
 
2013-11-07 11:53:21 AM

ikanreed: skullkrusher: ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.

Oh wait... You're one of them too? That explains a lot. My preferred authority is not the rich, however. Assumptions and categorizations do make things a bit easier on the old gulliver though, huh?

I have highlighted your lie.  You believe money=deserved power.  That's inherent to libertarian philosophy.


That's the ultimate blind spot of Libertarianism.
 
2013-11-07 11:53:22 AM
Has anyone mentioned that the author stands on the sidelines and complains about how libertarians stand on the sidelines and complain?
 
2013-11-07 11:53:48 AM

skullkrusher: Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.


When the barrier for entry is placed so high that you cannot conceivably compete, stealing is not immoral. OTOH, part of you selling your labor for less than it's value is to pay for capital, infrastructure and other necessary resources. Marxism fails simply because it doesn't acknowledge that reality.
 
2013-11-07 11:53:57 AM

ikanreed: skullkrusher: ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.

Oh wait... You're one of them too? That explains a lot. My preferred authority is not the rich, however. Assumptions and categorizations do make things a bit easier on the old gulliver though, huh?

I have highlighted your lie.  You believe money=deserved power.  That's inherent to libertarian philosophy.


I believe money=money and should have no impact on political power and that pains must be taken to avoid undue influence short of confiscating that money. You could have the decency to at least dust off the facts about me that you're pulling from your ass, son.
 
2013-11-07 11:54:55 AM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: Yeah but you like good scotch and bosoms so I can't quit you. Rest of these farks are joyless hand wringers.

Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.
Then you can make everyone you hire a partner in the business. You won't and will prefer to get rich off of their rent but you technically COULD do that ;)

I have no problem stealing from someone that has stolen the fruits of my labor.

/good to see you around.  It's been a while, hope all is well my friend.


Doing well. Busy oiling the wheels of capitalism with the blood of the downtrodden, as usual.
 
2013-11-07 11:55:57 AM

lockers: When the barrier for entry is placed so high that you cannot conceivably compete, stealing is not immoral. OTOH, part of you selling your labor for less than it's value is to pay for capital, infrastructure and other necessary resources. Marxism fails simply because it doesn't acknowledge that reality.


Sure it does.  You just haven't read enough Marx.
 
2013-11-07 11:56:50 AM

vygramul: I guess Republicans are going to spend some time blaming Sarvis and Libertarians for farking up America.


From an exchange with a Teahadist, responding to my suggestion that the obvious solution for the GOP is to pull farther right:

"And [redacted], my learning disabled friend. You are so right despite your own sarcastic tone. Kuccinelli, you would agree, was way farther to the right than Romney and performed way better than Romney did against Obama, despite the fact that he ran a much worse campaign than Romney and Obama ran a much better campaign than Mcauwful.

And what's farther right than a conservative? A libertarian... and between the crazy right wing conservative, Kuccinelli, and the even crazier libertarian, the right pulled in 53% of the vote to the Democrats 47%.

So yeah, you're actually right for once. The farther right we go, the better we perform in elections!"


The GOP's loss was immediately spun into a victory. Delusion is a hell of a drug.
 
2013-11-07 11:57:38 AM

lockers: skullkrusher: Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.

When the barrier for entry is placed so high that you cannot conceivably compete, stealing is not immoral. OTOH, part of you selling your labor for less than it's value is to pay for capital, infrastructure and other necessary resources. Marxism fails simply because it doesn't acknowledge that reality.


Barriers to entry are an issue but for the majority of people, their employer is small business. Not everyone works for a defense contractor or Walmart. Working in an industry with high barriers to entry is a pretty poor moral justification for stealing, however.
 
2013-11-07 11:57:51 AM

skullkrusher: FarkedOver: skullkrusher: Yeah but you like good scotch and bosoms so I can't quit you. Rest of these farks are joyless hand wringers.

Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.
Then you can make everyone you hire a partner in the business. You won't and will prefer to get rich off of their rent but you technically COULD do that ;)

I have no problem stealing from someone that has stolen the fruits of my labor.

/good to see you around.  It's been a while, hope all is well my friend.

Doing well. Busy oiling the wheels of capitalism with the blood of the downtrodden, as usual.


Wait until they start using kitten blood, farkers will be anti-capitalists then!
 
2013-11-07 11:58:36 AM

AdmirableSnackbar: ikanreed: skullkrusher: ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.

Oh wait... You're one of them too? That explains a lot. My preferred authority is not the rich, however. Assumptions and categorizations do make things a bit easier on the old gulliver though, huh?

I have highlighted your lie.  You believe money=deserved power.  That's inherent to libertarian philosophy.

That's the ultimate blind spot of Libertarianism.


It's capitalism as an integrated political/economic philosophy. Much as Marxism and in particular Marxism-Leninism presents an integrated political and economic philosophy with "socialism" as the heart and soul, libertarianism presents one with "capitalism" as its heart and soul. Given that capitalism is inherently hierarchical and oppressive, this should be heart-stoppingly frightening.
 
2013-11-07 11:58:55 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: It means you're probably white.


Look up "Moorish".
 
2013-11-07 11:59:11 AM

FarkedOver: lockers: When the barrier for entry is placed so high that you cannot conceivably compete, stealing is not immoral. OTOH, part of you selling your labor for less than it's value is to pay for capital, infrastructure and other necessary resources. Marxism fails simply because it doesn't acknowledge that reality.

Sure it does.  You just haven't read enough Marx.


I stopped at Animal Crackers. His schtick gets old
 
2013-11-07 11:59:22 AM

Katolu: Dusk-You-n-Me: It means you're probably white.

Look up "Moorish Moopish".

 
2013-11-07 12:00:26 PM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: FarkedOver: skullkrusher: Yeah but you like good scotch and bosoms so I can't quit you. Rest of these farks are joyless hand wringers.

Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.
Then you can make everyone you hire a partner in the business. You won't and will prefer to get rich off of their rent but you technically COULD do that ;)

I have no problem stealing from someone that has stolen the fruits of my labor.

/good to see you around.  It's been a while, hope all is well my friend.

Doing well. Busy oiling the wheels of capitalism with the blood of the downtrodden, as usual.

Wait until they start using kitten blood, farkers will be anti-capitalists then!


Alas Lhota was gonna be our kitten blood supplier and he lost to the commie
 
2013-11-07 12:01:24 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: Gulper Eel: I would rather replace a program like SNAP with a food program - straight-up deliveries of nutritious ingredients and staples as is necessary, plus more soup kitchens and pantries. Saves time for the recipients, no need for asset checks...and if done right, it shows people that government can be competent far better than anybody in a social-services office trying to figure out who's been swapping out their SNAP card for booze and smokes.

Soup kitchens and pantries, which being brick and mortar locations with staffs and whatnot would require much more overhead than just issuing SNAP cards and centrally managing them from one office with a data center attached. Meaning no, even from a libertaritron perspective your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

But hey, it punishes poor people more, so it's got that going for it.

/BSAB

Gulper

  is reacting to a straw man.  Industrialized food production was the future of convenience and efficiency not too long ago.  Housewives wouldn't need to do dishes anymore!  etc.    The very idea of "healthy" being "non processed" foods is a very new one.

Therefore his whole point is nonsense.  Would we design SNAP today the same way?  No, but that comes with quite a bit of hindsight.   The promise was convenience and efficiency for a modern world, not carbed up fatties eating the cheapest stuff we could make.  And like all bureaucracies, they're hard to change once they're entrenched -- especially when no one wants to pay for these healthy alternatives when sugar water is so cheap.  No 'big agra' conspiracy required.
 
2013-11-07 12:01:30 PM

Katolu: Look up "Moorish".


My comment was referring to this survey.

Compared to the general population, libertarians are significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic white, male, and young. Nearly all libertarians are non-Hispanic whites (94%), more than two-thirds (68%) are men, and more than 6-in-10 (62%) are under the age of 50.
 
2013-11-07 12:01:36 PM

skullkrusher: Barriers to entry are an issue but for the majority of people, their employer is small business. Not everyone works for a defense contractor or Walmart. Working in an industry with high barriers to entry is a pretty poor moral justification for stealing, however.


I don't agree with stealing from mom and pop stores, as those are typically family owned and operated.  They are working just as hard as the person working for MegaCorp.  Inc.  The issue is how hard and how much their personal time both of these types of workers have to forfeit in order to merely survive.

I bet if we calculated the amount of hours worked and the amount of time spent at a work place I think we would begin to see how much of our time the capitalist system we have in place wastes.  This some base and superstructure shiat here lol
 
2013-11-07 12:02:42 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: AdmirableSnackbar: ikanreed: skullkrusher: ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.

Oh wait... You're one of them too? That explains a lot. My preferred authority is not the rich, however. Assumptions and categorizations do make things a bit easier on the old gulliver though, huh?

I have highlighted your lie.  You believe money=deserved power.  That's inherent to libertarian philosophy.

That's the ultimate blind spot of Libertarianism.

It's capitalism as an integrated political/economic philosophy. Much as Marxism and in particular Marxism-Leninism presents an integrated political and economic philosophy with "socialism" as the heart and soul, libertarianism presents one with "capitalism" as its heart and soul. Given that capitalism is inherently hierarchical and oppressive, this should be heart-stoppingly frightening.


It's the worst system there is, except for everything else.
 
2013-11-07 12:02:48 PM
There's definitely a problem with people calling themselves libertarians who aren't -- but that problem is people like Gary North, not Bill Maher.
 
2013-11-07 12:05:13 PM

super_grass: It's the worst system there is, except for everything else.


Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

The fact remains that man created this system of economics.  We should constantly strive for a better system than what is in place now because it is terrible.  The profit motive needs a serious scaling back.
 
2013-11-07 12:05:52 PM
DarnoKonrad:
Would we design SNAP today the same way?  No, but that comes with quite a bit of hindsight.   The promise was convenience and efficiency for a modern world, not carbed up fatties eating the cheapest stuff we could make.  And like all bureaucracies, they're hard to change once they're entrenched -- especially when no one wants to pay for these healthy alternatives when sugar water is so cheap.  No 'big agra' conspiracy required.

Healthy alternatives aren't even more expensive, they just don't taste as good. You could be the picture of health on eggs, oatmeal, milk, the occasional mcdouble for cheating, and a multivitimin. Of course his concern with the health of snap participants is of the troll variety.
 
2013-11-07 12:06:25 PM

FarkedOver: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

That is the problem with libertarians.  Everything boils down to dollars and cents.  They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it.  The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops.  Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.


So be like Obama and just borrow the money from China to get your X product?  Obviously it was his fuzzy math that figured out Obamacare.
 
2013-11-07 12:06:47 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Katolu: Dusk-You-n-Me: It means you're probably white.

Look up "Moorish Moopish".


I LOLed and funnied. Thanks!
 
2013-11-07 12:07:27 PM
FarkedOver:
Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

When I realized that efficiency = unemployment, I suddenly realized why we don't scale it back.
 
2013-11-07 12:08:07 PM

karnal: FarkedOver: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

That is the problem with libertarians.  Everything boils down to dollars and cents.  They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it.  The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops.  Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

So be like Obama and just borrow the money from China to get your X product?  Obviously it was his fuzzy math that figured out Obamacare.


Here's a guy who thinks I give a shiat about Obama's shiatty policies.
 
2013-11-07 12:08:39 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: FarkedOver:
Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

When I realized that efficiency = unemployment, I suddenly realized why we don't scale it back.


The forced labor system is one of the big problems with capitalism, just as much as it was with the Soviet system.
 
2013-11-07 12:08:39 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: FarkedOver:
Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

When I realized that efficiency = unemployment, I suddenly realized why we don't scale it back.


well in a utopia we'd have robots (minorities?) doing all the labor for us so we wouldn't need a job at all and would just engage in whatever stimulates us creatively
 
2013-11-07 12:09:57 PM

FarkedOver: super_grass: It's the worst system there is, except for everything else.

Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

The fact remains that man created this system of economics.  We should constantly strive for a better system than what is in place now because it is terrible.  The profit motive needs a serious scaling back.


Capitalism is no different than Democracy:  If checks and balances aren't put into the model to ensure a level of equity within the system, it'll soon get out of wack.  See:  The Great Depression, the 2008 near-meltdown of the world economy.

That's why bills like Glass-Stegall are sorely needed and why Wall St. cowers in fear at the mere mention of it's restoration.  They're way too interested in using people's money like it's Vegas.
 
2013-11-07 12:10:59 PM

Gulper Eel: lockers: That isn't libertarianism. Greedy survivalist is more accurate.

So because, for example, my state spends as much on Medicaid than the next two largest states put together, without producing outcomes any better than the states that spend a shiatload less, and I think that's a damn stupid thing to do...I'm a greedy survivalist?

I take it you're with the Kris Kringle wing of the Democratic party.


It depends. Do you believe that the solution to your state's Medicaid problems is to assign knowledgeable non-political people to study the problems and propose solutions to reform the system that your state's legislature can then vote on enacting, or do you believe that Medicaid system should be burned down and abandoned because government has no business doing things like providing a social safety net?
 
2013-11-07 12:12:09 PM

FarkedOver: karnal: FarkedOver: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

That is the problem with libertarians.  Everything boils down to dollars and cents.  They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it.  The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops.  Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

So be like Obama and just borrow the money from China to get your X product?  Obviously it was his fuzzy math that figured out Obamacare.

Here's a guy who thinks I give a shiat about Obama's shiatty policies.


After the period at the end of this sentence, I will never give you another thought.
 
2013-11-07 12:12:13 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: toomuchwhargarbl: FarkedOver:
Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

When I realized that efficiency = unemployment, I suddenly realized why we don't scale it back.

The forced labor system is one of the big problems with capitalism, just as much as it was with the Soviet system.


Another issue with capitalism is that you would think that technological progress wouldn't result in more unemployment but would rather create an easing of the burden of work for all.
 
2013-11-07 12:13:18 PM

Rwa2play: Capitalism is no different than Democracy: If checks and balances aren't put into the model to ensure a level of equity within the system, it'll soon get out of wack. See: The Great Depression, the 2008 near-meltdown of the world economy.

That's why bills like Glass-Stegall are sorely needed and why Wall St. cowers in fear at the mere mention of it's restoration. They're way too interested in using people's money like it's Vegas.


Communism, socialism, anarchism are no different than democracy either..... I hope you are aware of that......
 
2013-11-07 12:13:22 PM

FarkedOver: super_grass: It's the worst system there is, except for everything else.

Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

The fact remains that man created this system of economics.  We should constantly strive for a better system than what is in place now because it is terrible.  The profit motive needs a serious scaling back.


And if I entered in a one-man race, I'd be first and last place at the same time. The other economic systems that have been attempted on a large scale have been, shall I say, "suboptimal".

And also, what value system isn't created by man? The only thing that comes close is natural competition, and that's by definition jungle law.
 
2013-11-07 12:13:31 PM

karnal: FarkedOver: karnal: FarkedOver: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

That is the problem with libertarians.  Everything boils down to dollars and cents.  They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it.  The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops.  Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

So be like Obama and just borrow the money from China to get your X product?  Obviously it was his fuzzy math that figured out Obamacare.

Here's a guy who thinks I give a shiat about Obama's shiatty policies.

After the period at the end of this sentence, I will never give you another thought.


We get it, you really don't like it when people don't match up to your assumptions of them, it harms your little worldview-bubble.
 
2013-11-07 12:14:05 PM

karnal: FarkedOver: karnal: FarkedOver: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

That is the problem with libertarians.  Everything boils down to dollars and cents.  They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it.  The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops.  Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

So be like Obama and just borrow the money from China to get your X product?  Obviously it was his fuzzy math that figured out Obamacare.

Here's a guy who thinks I give a shiat about Obama's shiatty policies.

After the period at the end of this sentence, I will never give you another thought.


Ok.
 
2013-11-07 12:14:07 PM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: Barriers to entry are an issue but for the majority of people, their employer is small business. Not everyone works for a defense contractor or Walmart. Working in an industry with high barriers to entry is a pretty poor moral justification for stealing, however.

I don't agree with stealing from mom and pop stores, as those are typically family owned and operated.  They are working just as hard as the person working for MegaCorp.  Inc.  The issue is how hard and how much their personal time both of these types of workers have to forfeit in order to merely survive.

I bet if we calculated the amount of hours worked and the amount of time spent at a work place I think we would begin to see how much of our time the capitalist system we have in place wastes.  This some base and superstructure shiat here lol


Capitalists are capitalists, man. You're a socialist. You're gonna have to come to terms with stealing from mom and pop
 
2013-11-07 12:17:26 PM

super_grass: And also, what value system isn't created by man? The only thing that comes close is natural competition, and that's by definition jungle law.


If man can create and make capitalism work, why can man not make socialism or communism work?  Do you believe it to be beyond our capability as a species?  If so, you do not give man enough credit.

Difficulty: Don't give me the typical capitalist bullshiat line of "bb..b.b.butttt HUMAN NATURE!"
 
2013-11-07 12:17:36 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: toomuchwhargarbl: FarkedOver:
Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

When I realized that efficiency = unemployment, I suddenly realized why we don't scale it back.

The forced labor system is one of the big problems with capitalism, just as much as it was with the Soviet system.


Ah now we're at the heart of the matter. You just want to be free to pursue your dreams which no one else values and expect society to foot the bill.
 
2013-11-07 12:19:44 PM

sprawl15: toomuchwhargarbl: FarkedOver:
Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

When I realized that efficiency = unemployment, I suddenly realized why we don't scale it back.

well in a utopia we'd have robots (minorities?) doing all the labor for us so we wouldn't need a job at all and would just engage in whatever stimulates us creatively


Until the robots rebel and nuke the planet. This never ends well.
 
2013-11-07 12:20:02 PM

sprawl15: toomuchwhargarbl: FarkedOver:
Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

When I realized that efficiency = unemployment, I suddenly realized why we don't scale it back.

well in a utopia we'd have robots (minorities?) doing all the labor for us so we wouldn't need a job at all and would just engage in whatever stimulates us creatively


Looking at most workers I run into, they might as well be robots for all the humanity that is both displayed by and shown to them :(.
 
2013-11-07 12:20:37 PM

Thrag: Gulper Eel: lockers: That isn't libertarianism. Greedy survivalist is more accurate.

So because, for example, my state spends as much on Medicaid than the next two largest states put together, without producing outcomes any better than the states that spend a shiatload less, and I think that's a damn stupid thing to do...I'm a greedy survivalist?

I take it you're with the Kris Kringle wing of the Democratic party.

It depends. Do you believe that the solution to your state's Medicaid problems is to assign knowledgeable non-political people to study the problems and propose solutions to reform the system that your state's legislature can then vote on enacting, or do you believe that Medicaid system should be burned down and abandoned because government has no business doing things like providing a social safety net?


EVEN THE VERY QUESTION IS SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA!

/furiously hand waves while constructing his strawman.
 
2013-11-07 12:21:28 PM
Liberterianism would work if only everyone abided by my rules.
 
2013-11-07 12:21:48 PM

skullkrusher: Capitalists are capitalists, man. You're a socialist. You're gonna have to come to terms with stealing from mom and pop


Providing for a larger society is the moral equivalent of taking pens from my company?
 
2013-11-07 12:21:57 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: Red herring, the Food Nutrition program with SNAP and WIC have the lowest fraud amount of any federal program, this includes the Department of Defense.


[citation needed]

It's true that SNAP fraud has decreased to around 1-1.3% - which is good compared to the ~10% Medicare fraud rate - but the program has a long history of mismanagement even above its flawed design.

People like to be compassionate, but they're not going to be chumps. The program not only needs to be good, it needs to be perceived as good, and that perception has to be earned over time. And oversight is never sexy. It gets cut because it gets in the way of politicians who want to be the hero on the white horse, riding in when times are tough with piles of money and few questions asked.

And then take into account that the SNAP program is nutritionally horrible.

Low-income shoppers on a constrained budget, the very group these programs target, often make the rational decision in the supermarket to buy the most energy-dense foods limited dollars can afford. And, in the American supermarket, it just so happens that you get more calories per dollar from soft drinks than fruit juice, from refined grains than whole grains, from frozen french fries than fresh broccoli.
"In other words, the foods, beverages, snacks or diets said to promote obesity were, in every case, inexpensive," Adam Drewnowski, director of the Center for Obesity Research at the University of Washington, wrote in a 2007 article in Epidemiologic Reviews. "What epidemiologic research seems to have shown, fairly consistently, is that obesity is most closely associated with habitual consumption of low-cost foods."


In other words, the food stamp program would be great if it was still 1937.
 
2013-11-07 12:23:13 PM

hinten: Liberterianism would work if only everyone abided by my rules.


Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.
 
2013-11-07 12:23:45 PM

FarkedOver: super_grass: And also, what value system isn't created by man? The only thing that comes close is natural competition, and that's by definition jungle law.

If man can create and make capitalism work, why can man not make socialism or communism work?  Do you believe it to be beyond our capability as a species?  If so, you do not give man enough credit.


Well better men have tried and failed repeatedly and spectacularly. It just so happens that various combinations of private ownership and decentralized competition works better.

Difficulty: Don't give me the typical capitalist bullshiat line of "bb..b.b.butttt HUMAN NATURE!"

Why the hell not? I lock my doors at night and distrust abstinence only education for the same reason. I'd rather redirect human tendency towards productive ends than to fight it.
 
2013-11-07 12:25:06 PM

lockers: hinten: Liberterianism would work if only everyone abided by my rules.

Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.


Why does the "reasonable compromise" always seem to match the current farked-up system, or, at best, be "strictly capitalist + welfare state"?
 
2013-11-07 12:25:08 PM
 
2013-11-07 12:26:28 PM
They're certainly right about all the petty blue laws and punishments for victimless crimes we tolerate.  There are way too many doucebag authoritarians and the douches who just sit by and enable them, because it's for the children.
 
2013-11-07 12:26:28 PM

lockers: skullkrusher: Capitalists are capitalists, man. You're a socialist. You're gonna have to come to terms with stealing from mom and pop

Providing for a larger society is the moral equivalent of taking pens from my company?


Huh? Capitalists are capitalists. They profit by taking in more revenues than it costs to provide their service or good. Whether they are globocorp or a corner furniture store, the mechanism is the same. You're not a socialist if you only want big companies broken up
 
2013-11-07 12:27:50 PM

FarkedOver: super_grass: And also, what value system isn't created by man? The only thing that comes close is natural competition, and that's by definition jungle law.

If man can create and make capitalism work, why can man not make socialism or communism work?  Do you believe it to be beyond our capability as a species?  If so, you do not give man enough credit.

Difficulty: Don't give me the typical capitalist bullshiat line of "bb..b.b.butttt HUMAN NATURE!"


Uh, but pure capitalism DIDN'T work. It farked things up. BADLY, and lead to thinks like Standard Oil, etc. A fusion of Capitalism and socialism does seem to work the best.

I really don't think communism can work for large-scale societies, because, yes, of human nature at the moment. Most people may be happy to help folks they know/work to provide for friends and family, but when the people you're supposedly aiding are so far away as to become a total abstraction, I suspect it is much harder to give a fark.

This is also why pure captialism/no regulations screws up too, mind. ("So what if this makes the water undrinkable 100 miles downstream, I don't know those folks! Screw them, it's cheaper to dump the waste in the river, I own the water rights for this stretch of it!")
 
2013-11-07 12:28:09 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: hinten: Liberterianism would work if only everyone abided by my rules.

Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.

Why does the "reasonable compromise" always seem to match the current farked-up system, or, at best, be "strictly capitalist + welfare state"?


Because there's nothing reasonable about seizing the means of production for collective ownership?
 
2013-11-07 12:28:33 PM

Gulper Eel: FarkedOver: That is the problem with libertarians. Everything boils down to dollars and cents. They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it. The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops. Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

Horseshiat.

Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.


As always, your characterization of "the left's" position is false. If anyone have proposals to make SNAP work better to provide good nutrition "the left" would be happy to hear them. Instead of sensible meaningful reform, all we get is the desire to cut it's funding or eliminate it entirely. What you view as "the left" trying to increase benefits is not a desire to throw money at the problem, it's barely even a desire to significantly increase benefits. It's primarily a push against the constant call to cut the program to the bone.

So, you express the notion of starting a new program from scratch. You've got the burn it down part, but what do you build in its place? What are your ideas, the ideas Libertarians you are aware of, or the Libertarian party position on this issue? How can we improve SNAP, or what should it be replaced with that would be more effective?
 
2013-11-07 12:29:57 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: hinten: Liberterianism would work if only everyone abided by my rules.

Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.

Why does the "reasonable compromise" always seem to match the current farked-up system, or, at best, be "strictly capitalist + welfare state"?


Because, in practice, communism fails to meet it's ideological goals. The ideology ignores the power seeking nature of humanity. Goal seeking is the human condition, and requires reward. Don't get me wrong, I think we will see in our lifetime automation forcing that hand. At some point there just won't be enough need for labor for people. We will have to either ditch capitalism or kill off almost everyone.
 
2013-11-07 12:30:02 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: slayer199: The more power you give to the federal government, the fewer freedoms the individual has

I've often asked this question of libertarians and I can never get a straight answer.

What truly gives a person their freedoms?


They aren't given, they just are.

Where do you think they come from?
 
2013-11-07 12:33:17 PM

BMFPitt: IdBeCrazyIf: slayer199: The more power you give to the federal government, the fewer freedoms the individual has

I've often asked this question of libertarians and I can never get a straight answer.

What truly gives a person their freedoms?

They aren't given, they just are.

Where do you think they come from?


Shared ideology, cultural norms, centuries of legal precedent and philosophy?

I mean, there's no inherent thing called "human rights", it's just something that people universally agree on and have some utilitarian value. Kind of like the concept of right and wrong.
 
2013-11-07 12:33:46 PM

skullkrusher: lockers: skullkrusher: Capitalists are capitalists, man. You're a socialist. You're gonna have to come to terms with stealing from mom and pop

Providing for a larger society is the moral equivalent of taking pens from my company?

Huh? Capitalists are capitalists. They profit by taking in more revenues than it costs to provide their service or good. Whether they are globocorp or a corner furniture store, the mechanism is the same. You're not a socialist if you only want big companies broken up


Which doesn't answer my question. Why is the government, which is concerned about social welfare and not profit, taxing the moral equivalent of theft? We can argue just how much the government should intervene, but specifically why is taxation the moral equivalent of theft?
 
2013-11-07 12:35:53 PM
Libertarians are authoritarians.

They just think that they should be the authority.
 
2013-11-07 12:36:06 PM

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: hinten: Liberterianism would work if only everyone abided by my rules.

Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.

Why does the "reasonable compromise" always seem to match the current farked-up system, or, at best, be "strictly capitalist + welfare state"?

Because, in practice, communism fails to meet it's ideological goals. The ideology ignores the power seeking nature of humanity. Goal seeking is the human condition, and requires reward. Don't get me wrong, I think we will see in our lifetime automation forcing that hand. At some point there just won't be enough need for labor for people. We will have to either ditch capitalism or kill off almost everyone.


There are more than two choices, you do understand that, right? Hell, let's talk small-scale nitty gritty: Why not restructure the system of tax incentives to promote worker ownership? Why not remove the huge anti-labor legal infrastructure and promote unionization instead of attacking it? Why not give traditional banks the legal limitations that credit unions have and deregulate them instead? I think that a large-scale collectivist anarchism is practical now, but even if we're just talking "moderate compromise", why is that "moderate compromise" in actuality so immoderate and tilted toward the capitalist class? It doesn't have to be that way, and the welfare state is not the only or the best way out.
 
2013-11-07 12:36:34 PM

Thrag: It depends. Do you believe that the solution to your state's Medicaid problems is to assign knowledgeable non-political people to study the problems and propose solutions to reform the system that your state's legislature can then vote on enacting, or do you believe that Medicaid system should be burned down and abandoned because government has no business doing things like providing a social safety net?


What happens over time is that any government program of a certain size ends up with its own industrial complex - in New York that'd be the health-care-industrial complex, thanks to a Medicaid program that's grown to be almost half the state budget.

The question for New York is not whether to change, but how they're going to change before the change is imposed by Washington in a way New York is not going to like at all. Members of Congress do not like to be embarrassed, and when it was found out this year that New York had overbilled Medicaid by $15 billion over 20 years for care for the mentally ill - most of it at a handful of hospitals - even the libbiest libs on the oversight committee thought that was a bit much to skim off the top, and thus Congress ordered the state to make at least partial restitution and spread some CYA around for all concerned.

There's more of that coming for New York, which made the mistake of being too obvious about treating Medicaid as a vote-buying/check-cutting program rather than a program to pay for care of the poor.

In other words, tearing down the program and starting over may be a best-case scenario, if the ham-handers in Washington handle things in the usual way.
 
2013-11-07 12:36:39 PM

super_grass: Why the hell not? I lock my doors at night and distrust abstinence only education for the same reason. I'd rather redirect human tendency towards productive ends than to fight it.


Because the human nature argument is pure bullshiat.  Capitalists, libertarians, et al. all focus in on only the deplorable facets of what it means to be human.  Further, I have never seen a great definition of human nature laid out by capitalists.

I like the definition that human nature is merely how human beings adapt to differing social circumstances.
 
2013-11-07 12:36:41 PM

BMFPitt: IdBeCrazyIf: slayer199: The more power you give to the federal government, the fewer freedoms the individual has

I've often asked this question of libertarians and I can never get a straight answer.

What truly gives a person their freedoms?

They aren't given, they just are.

Where do you think they come from?


You're intellectual superiors who had both the means and the interest in making a better world. Before the enlightenment, you were a ward of the sovereign and existed at it's pleasure. This, in fact, is still true today. Bush was right, the constitution is just a piece of paper.
 
2013-11-07 12:41:49 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: There are more than two choices, you do understand that, right? Hell, let's talk small-scale nitty gritty: Why not restructure the system of tax incentives to promote worker ownership? Why not remove the huge anti-labor legal infrastructure and promote unionization instead of attacking it? Why not give traditional banks the legal limitations that credit unions have and deregulate them instead? I think that a large-scale collectivist anarchism is practical now, but even if we're just talking "moderate compromise", why is that "moderate compromise" in actuality so immoderate and tilted toward the capitalist class? It doesn't have to be that way, and the welfare state is not the only or the best way out.


Oh, I'm sorry. I am not disagreeing with you. I would love to reform society to be a fairer one. Our problem is the inertia of a working (however dysfunctional) system. However, people refuse to wake up to the fact of just how raw a deal they are getting in our economy. The best I can hope to accomplish is for my government to pull out a paddle to nudge the titanic's direction.
 
2013-11-07 12:42:31 PM

Thrag: So, you express the notion of starting a new program from scratch. You've got the burn it down part, but what do you build in its place? What are your ideas, the ideas Libertarians you are aware of, or the Libertarian party position on this issue? How can we improve SNAP, or what should it be replaced with that would be more effective?


Read upthread. I'll oversimplify what I already wrote - Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries. I see no reason why Walmart should get rich selling poor people boxes of taxpayer-subsidized Frosted Flakes that'll land them in diabeetusland 20 years from now.
 
2013-11-07 12:43:18 PM

FarkedOver: Capitalists, libertarians, et al. all focus in on only the deplorable facets of what it means to be human


There's nothing deplorable about self interest. It's just how people behave and a means of survival that is pretty much universal across all complex society.
 
2013-11-07 12:44:12 PM

super_grass: There's nothing deplorable about self interest. It's just how people behave and a means of survival that is pretty much universal across all complex society.


Self interest is staying alive.  Having food, shelter, water, etc.  Self interest is not the same as greed.
 
2013-11-07 12:45:12 PM

Gulper Eel: Thrag: So, you express the notion of starting a new program from scratch. You've got the burn it down part, but what do you build in its place? What are your ideas, the ideas Libertarians you are aware of, or the Libertarian party position on this issue? How can we improve SNAP, or what should it be replaced with that would be more effective?

Read upthread. I'll oversimplify what I already wrote - Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries. I see no reason why Walmart should get rich selling poor people boxes of taxpayer-subsidized Frosted Flakes that'll land them in diabeetusland 20 years from now.


Better yet, instead of handing out subsidies to farmers to grow food only to let it rot, you can redirect that money towards handing out produce that won't clog your artery/colon.
 
2013-11-07 12:46:35 PM

Gulper Eel: Thrag: So, you express the notion of starting a new program from scratch. You've got the burn it down part, but what do you build in its place? What are your ideas, the ideas Libertarians you are aware of, or the Libertarian party position on this issue? How can we improve SNAP, or what should it be replaced with that would be more effective?

Read upthread. I'll oversimplify what I already wrote - Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries. I see no reason why Walmart should get rich selling poor people boxes of taxpayer-subsidized Frosted Flakes that'll land them in diabeetusland 20 years from now.


Who do you think would get the contract for providing that food?  I'm sure it would be some super-reputable upstart who cares about the best interests of the recipient and certainly not some MegaCorp that greases the wheels and does things on the cheap and provides food that over the years would end with the recipient in diabeetusland.
 
2013-11-07 12:46:37 PM

lockers: skullkrusher: lockers: skullkrusher: Capitalists are capitalists, man. You're a socialist. You're gonna have to come to terms with stealing from mom and pop

Providing for a larger society is the moral equivalent of taking pens from my company?

Huh? Capitalists are capitalists. They profit by taking in more revenues than it costs to provide their service or good. Whether they are globocorp or a corner furniture store, the mechanism is the same. You're not a socialist if you only want big companies broken up

Which doesn't answer my question. Why is the government, which is concerned about social welfare and not profit, taxing the moral equivalent of theft? We can argue just how much the government should intervene, but specifically why is taxation the moral equivalent of theft?


I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer
 
2013-11-07 12:47:01 PM

FarkedOver: super_grass: There's nothing deplorable about self interest. It's just how people behave and a means of survival that is pretty much universal across all complex society.

Self interest is staying alive.  Having food, shelter, water, etc.  Self interest is not the same as greed.


That's like, the lowest level of the hierarchy. People have more needs & wants than that:  nursingcrib.com
 
2013-11-07 12:48:38 PM

super_grass: FarkedOver: Capitalists, libertarians, et al. all focus in on only the deplorable facets of what it means to be human

There's nothing deplorable about self interest. It's just how people behave and a means of survival that is pretty much universal across all complex society.


Let's agree that human self interest is universal.  Food is in the self interest of man.  There is enough food to feed everyone on the planet.  Why do we not feed every person on the planet if this is a universal need?
 
2013-11-07 12:49:28 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


"I am a proud conservative and brony--"

img.fark.net
 
2013-11-07 12:50:25 PM

super_grass: That's like, the lowest level of the hierarchy. People have more needs & wants than that:


Everything hinges on food and water.  If you don't have those you won't have anything else for very long.
 
2013-11-07 12:52:10 PM

skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer


I REFUSE to give back the post its i took! FARK THE MAN!
 
2013-11-07 12:53:57 PM

FarkedOver: super_grass: FarkedOver: Capitalists, libertarians, et al. all focus in on only the deplorable facets of what it means to be human

There's nothing deplorable about self interest. It's just how people behave and a means of survival that is pretty much universal across all complex society.

Let's agree that human self interest is universal.  Food is in the self interest of man.  There is enough food to feed everyone on the planet.  Why do we not feed every person on the planet if this is a universal need?


Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.
 
2013-11-07 12:54:15 PM

skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer


Sorry to misunderstand you then. Stealing from anyone is wrong, but society changing the game isn't. If society decides you shouldn't own something and should be given over to society, well thems the breaks. Just like how now, your grandchildren can own an expression of an idea. Copyright, just like private property are ideas and are inherently ammoral.
 
2013-11-07 12:54:36 PM

skullkrusher: ... Capitalists are capitalists. They profit by taking in more revenues than it costs to provide their service or good. Whether they are globocorp or a corner furniture store, the mechanism is the same.

...


Capitalists profit by:

- identifying an unmet or undermet consumer demand
- analyzing the availability and prices of all of the various factors of production, as well as the market for the good to be sold
- organizing the financing, production and marketing of the good or service
- producing the good efficiently
- adapting to constantly-changing circumstances in all involved markets (suppliers, labor, the good sold, etc.)
- taking the risk that the venture will fail, in which case there is no profit, and the capitalist does not get paid for his work

These tasks have economic value.  These tasks are difficult.  They require skill.  The person who does them well should be paid well for doing them.  Some people are better at doing them than others.  The people who do them better than others should get paid more than others.  We call this type of compensation "profit," but it's really just the name given to the way that the person who performs the entrepreneurial functions of a business gets paid.

The fact that you believe that the entrepreneur profits by merely skimming the "excess value" created by the laborer demonstrates that you have (a) read too much Karl Marx, and (b) that you have no experience whatsoever in actually producing valuable things for others.
 
2013-11-07 12:54:43 PM

FarkedOver: super_grass: That's like, the lowest level of the hierarchy. People have more needs & wants than that:

Everything hinges on food and water.  If you don't have those you won't have anything else for very long.


Well yeah. And once you get those, you move up to bigger things.
 
2013-11-07 12:55:29 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
 
2013-11-07 01:01:42 PM

Phinn: skullkrusher: ... Capitalists are capitalists. They profit by taking in more revenues than it costs to provide their service or good. Whether they are globocorp or a corner furniture store, the mechanism is the same. ...

Capitalists profit by:

- identifying an unmet or undermet consumer demand
- analyzing the availability and prices of all of the various factors of production, as well as the market for the good to be sold
- organizing the financing, production and marketing of the good or service
- producing the good efficiently
- adapting to constantly-changing circumstances in all involved markets (suppliers, labor, the good sold, etc.)
- taking the risk that the venture will fail, in which case there is no profit, and the capitalist does not get paid for his work

These tasks have economic value.  These tasks are difficult.  They require skill.  The person who does them well should be paid well for doing them.  Some people are better at doing them than others.  The people who do them better than others should get paid more than others.  We call this type of compensation "profit," but it's really just the name given to the way that the person who performs the entrepreneurial functions of a business gets paid.

The fact that you believe that the entrepreneur profits by merely skimming the "excess value" created by the laborer demonstrates that you have (a) read too much Karl Marx, and (b) that you have no experience whatsoever in actually producing valuable things for others.


Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties
 
2013-11-07 01:04:20 PM

lockers: skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer

Sorry to misunderstand you then. Stealing from anyone is wrong, but society changing the game isn't. If society decides you shouldn't own something and should be given over to society, well thems the breaks. Just like how now, your grandchildren can own an expression of an idea. Copyright, just like private property are ideas and are inherently ammoral.


I disagree. There is nothing immoral about private property. Nor are copyrights on inventions immoral. Copyrighting a non-tangible idea is stupid tho
 
2013-11-07 01:04:47 PM

skullkrusher: Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties



I was aiming at lockers, not you.  I edited his part out.  Sorry.
 
2013-11-07 01:06:13 PM

lockers: skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer

Sorry to misunderstand you then. Stealing from anyone is wrong, but society changing the game isn't. If society decides you shouldn't own something and should be given over to society, well thems the breaks. Just like how now, your grandchildren can own an expression of an idea. Copyright, just like private property are ideas and are inherently ammoral.


We could do like the US did and just declare that nothing BTR was owned by anyone. Then it's not stealing! The doctrine of discovery provides such a nice precedent.
 
2013-11-07 01:06:19 PM
FTA - "Reason is great at highlighting abuses by every level of government pushing the idea that oil companies shouldn't have to deal with any environmental regulation because asshole cops in Podunkville, Indiana shut down a kid's lemonade stand...  which was also stocked with nachos, hot dogs, popcorn, candy, and commercial containers of about six different beverages and happened to be set up just outside of a car show in which vendors had paid a pretty hefty fee for the privilege to peddle their refreshments)

Oh, and did we mention that Reason is bankrolled by billionaire oil magnates?
 
2013-11-07 01:07:35 PM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer

I REFUSE to give back the post its i took! FARK THE MAN!


My company doesn't get good pens. I have to steal from the dr's office.
 
2013-11-07 01:07:40 PM

skullkrusher: Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties


You sometimes criticize Republicans. Therefore, you are automatically a Marxist commie America hater to some people around here.
 
2013-11-07 01:09:39 PM

super_grass: Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.


Yet we as a species have the ability to make food not a need.  We choose not to do this.  Why is that? The answer is it is not profitable to feed everyone.  Some people have to die in order to profit.  That's a problem.
 
2013-11-07 01:10:30 PM

QueenMamaBee: FarkedOver: skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer

I REFUSE to give back the post its i took! FARK THE MAN!

My company doesn't get good pens. I have to steal from the dr's office.


The bank puts those farking chains on their pens.... crafty farking capitalists
 
2013-11-07 01:12:24 PM

Phinn: skullkrusher: Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties

I was aiming at lockers, not you.  I edited his part out.  Sorry.


I was gonna say - I've never seen anyone accuse Skullkrusher of being a Marxist.
 
2013-11-07 01:13:36 PM

Gulper Eel: A Republican will pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

A Democrat will pee on your leg and tell you you're racist/sexist/plutocratic for objecting to having your leg peed on.

A Libertarian will tell you to move your farking leg out of the way before he pees.


Time for this:
i232.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-07 01:14:06 PM

skullkrusher: lockers: skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer

Sorry to misunderstand you then. Stealing from anyone is wrong, but society changing the game isn't. If society decides you shouldn't own something and should be given over to society, well thems the breaks. Just like how now, your grandchildren can own an expression of an idea. Copyright, just like private property are ideas and are inherently ammoral.

I disagree. There is nothing immoral about private property. Nor are copyrights on inventions immoral. Copyrighting a non-tangible idea is stupid tho


That is why I said ammoral. It is neither immoral nor moral about it. It is a concept that has utility in our society. When it ceases to have value it will cease being unethical. Private property makes sense in a world where scarcity needs to be managed. Once human labor becomes unnecessary so does property.
 
2013-11-07 01:14:55 PM

Gulper Eel: Thrag: It depends. Do you believe that the solution to your state's Medicaid problems is to assign knowledgeable non-political people to study the problems and propose solutions to reform the system that your state's legislature can then vote on enacting, or do you believe that Medicaid system should be burned down and abandoned because government has no business doing things like providing a social safety net?

What happens over time is that any government program of a certain size ends up with its own industrial complex - in New York that'd be the health-care-industrial complex, thanks to a Medicaid program that's grown to be almost half the state budget.

The question for New York is not whether to change, but how they're going to change before the change is imposed by Washington in a way New York is not going to like at all. Members of Congress do not like to be embarrassed, and when it was found out this year that New York had overbilled Medicaid by $15 billion over 20 years for care for the mentally ill - most of it at a handful of hospitals - even the libbiest libs on the oversight committee thought that was a bit much to skim off the top, and thus Congress ordered the state to make at least partial restitution and spread some CYA around for all concerned.

There's more of that coming for New York, which made the mistake of being too obvious about treating Medicaid as a vote-buying/check-cutting program rather than a program to pay for care of the poor.

In other words, tearing down the program and starting over may be a best-case scenario, if the ham-handers in Washington handle things in the usual way.


Tearing down and starting over seems to be your primary theme when it comes to solutions. "Tear it down and start over" is really a non-answer. It's more of a platitude. Until one has the solution to start over with (and a transition plan to get there), it's pretty meaningless.

I see that you had already answered my question about your notion of what to start over with when it comes to SNAP (my apologies, I make slow progress through threads due to limited time to fark). You mentioned

"Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries."

Okay, that's an alternative. However do you realize that you are creating a immense government infrastructure that will employ vast numbers of people. A single government run entity that produces (or procures) enough food, the logistics infrastructure to collect and transport all that food to distribution endpoints, and the soup kitchens and pantries to distribute the food, and an we'd still need the agency to keep track of what benefits people should be getting, enforcing the rules, and tracking down fraud. If you are a libertarian, that is one hell of a large government solution. If the answer then is to contract out all those operations to private companies, you have created huge opportunity for crony capitalism like abusing the contracting process and you still have a large government organization that is responsible for performing and overseeing the contracting process (and don't forget we still have the aforementioned bureaucracy for administering the benefits individuals get).

Compared to all this, the current SNAP program is astonishingly more free market/libertarian than your solution.

As someone on "the left" I find your idea impractical but I have zero ideological problem with it.  I find it to be a rather naive idea. The kind of simple but totally impractical solution that will readily pop into one's head. You demonstrate one the things that I and I'm sure many others find characterize conversations with self identified libertarians, and what gives the label a bad name. The firm belief that a system should be torn down because it is imperfect but no ideas to replace it beyond oversimplifications that don't address why the existing system was imperfect in the first place. The concentration of thought is on tearing down the system, and finding all sorts of reasons why it is bad, but expending little to no effort on a replacement solution. This focus also leads to the mischaracterization of the left's general position, which is not "more, simply more" but rather "can you please stop relentlessly trying to tear down the social safety net and instead focus on how to make it work better (and not then freak out if that may cost a little more)".
 
2013-11-07 01:15:23 PM
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
  LIBERTARIAN FOOD PANTRY
 
2013-11-07 01:16:23 PM

lockers: skullkrusher: lockers: skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer

Sorry to misunderstand you then. Stealing from anyone is wrong, but society changing the game isn't. If society decides you shouldn't own something and should be given over to society, well thems the breaks. Just like how now, your grandchildren can own an expression of an idea. Copyright, just like private property are ideas and are inherently ammoral.

I disagree. There is nothing immoral about private property. Nor are copyrights on inventions immoral. Copyrighting a non-tangible idea is stupid tho

That is why I said ammoral. It is neither immoral nor moral about it. It is a concept that has utility in our society. When it ceases to have value it will cease being unethical. Private property makes sense in a world where scarcity needs to be managed. Once human labor becomes unnecessary so does property.


Oh crap, sorry. My misread
 
2013-11-07 01:17:02 PM

vygramul: Phinn: skullkrusher: Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties

I was aiming at lockers, not you.  I edited his part out.  Sorry.

I was gonna say - I've never seen anyone accuse Skullkrusher of being a Marxist.


I'm a Man for All Seasons

/come see my play!
 
2013-11-07 01:17:21 PM
graphics8.nytimes.com
 LIBERTARIAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
 
2013-11-07 01:20:58 PM

FarkedOver: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x331]
 LIBERTARIAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT


And then they buy the land and have the cops evict the tent colony.
 
2013-11-07 01:23:19 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x331]
 LIBERTARIAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT

And then they buy the land and have the cops evict the tent colony.


Not before the Libertarian Meals on Wheels program stops and gives everyone a hot meal!

www.solarfeeds.com
 
2013-11-07 01:25:32 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x331]
 LIBERTARIAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT

And then they buy the land and have the cops evict the tent colony.


Well, they just evict the people.  They keep the tents so they can sell them back to their former tenants at a modest mark-up or for indentured servitude, whichever the former tenant chooses.
 
2013-11-07 01:25:36 PM
Ladies, don't feel left out.  The libertarians are thinking of you with their

swamprighter.files.wordpress.com
LIBERTARIAN ABORTION CLINIC!
 
2013-11-07 01:26:05 PM

lockers: Private property makes sense in a world where scarcity needs to be managed. Once human labor becomes unnecessary so does property.



That's all wrong, and could not be more wrong.

Scarcity is an omnipresent, unavoidable aspect of economic reality.  It's like gravity or electromagnetism -- it's an essential, integral aspect of the production and consumption of economic goods.

Scarcity has a specific meaning, by the way.  It doesn't mean "less of something than I want there to be."  It means rivalry -- more than one person competing for the use of something.

If nothing else, there is always the rivalry of time -- two things cannot be done at once.  Choices have to be made.

All material goods are rivalrous.  You can't use the land I'm using for my house to grow your carrots.  You can't eat the food I am going to eat.  You can't use the rubber in my tires for the soles of your shoes.  You can't transmit a message through the earth's EM field at the same time I'm using that same field to make a transmission.

Property is just the set of ethical rules concerning the priority of use of things, as between two or more people who might be using it.

As long as people interact, there is property.  At the very least, there's property over the use of one's own body, over which we each have the first and inalienable priority of use, forever.  That's what it means to have the right to be free from aggression -- it is, at base, an expression of property in your own body.

Property in other things, like food and water and radiating out from there, is an extension of the property right in your body.
 
2013-11-07 01:26:31 PM

FarkedOver: Rwa2play: Capitalism is no different than Democracy: If checks and balances aren't put into the model to ensure a level of equity within the system, it'll soon get out of wack. See: The Great Depression, the 2008 near-meltdown of the world economy.

That's why bills like Glass-Stegall are sorely needed and why Wall St. cowers in fear at the mere mention of it's restoration. They're way too interested in using people's money like it's Vegas.

Communism, socialism, anarchism are no different than democracy either..... I hope you are aware of that......


Very: however I was making the point that economic systems are no different than political ones when it comes to transparency, responsibility and accountability.
 
2013-11-07 01:26:41 PM
that;s actually a pretty nice alley
 
2013-11-07 01:27:01 PM

Gulper Eel: A Republican will pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

A Democrat will pee on your leg and tell you you're racist/sexist/plutocratic for objecting to having your leg peed on.

A Libertarian will tell you to move your farking leg out of the way before he pees.


A Libertarian will pee on your leg and then tell you you should have moved your leg when you saw him unzipping his fly.
 
2013-11-07 01:27:42 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


download.gamespotcdn.net

/whether real or satire, it's still hilarious
 
2013-11-07 01:28:24 PM

FarkedOver: super_grass: Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.

Yet we as a species have the ability to make food not a need.  We choose not to do this.  Why is that? The answer is it is not profitable to feed everyone.  Some people have to die in order to profit.  That's a problem.


We certainly try to. The US is one of biggest government and private donors to poor countries. A good chunk of the problem is that food delivery and production is a complex logistical process that doesn't always happen in war-torn or dictator controlled areas.
 
2013-11-07 01:28:48 PM

Jackson Herring: that;s actually a pretty nice alley


You think that's nice, check out the tools of the trade:

factorydirectcraft.com
 
2013-11-07 01:31:08 PM

Thrag: Tearing down and starting over seems to be your primary theme when it comes to solutions. "Tear it down and start over" is really a non-answer. It's more of a platitude. Until one has the solution to start over with (and a transition plan to get there), it's pretty meaningless.

I see that you had already answered my question about your notion of what to start over with when it comes to SNAP (my apologies, I make slow progress through threads due to limited time to fark). You mentioned

"Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries."

Okay, that's an alternative. However do you realize that you are creating a immense government infrastructure that will employ vast numbers of people. A single government run entity that produces (or procures) enough food, the logistics infrastructure to collect and transport all that food to distribution endpoints, and the soup kitchens and pantries to distribute the food, and an we'd still need the agency to keep track of what benefits people should be getting, enforcing the rules, and tracking down fraud. If you are a libertarian, that is one hell of a large government solution. If the answer then is to contract out all those operations to private companies, you have created huge opportunity for crony capitalism like abusing the contracting process and you still have a large government organization that is responsible for performing and overseeing the contracting process (and don't forget we still have the aforementioned bureaucracy for administering the benefits individuals get).

Compared to all this, the current SNAP program is astonishingly more free market/libertarian than your solution.

As someone on "the left" I find your idea impractical but I have zero ideological problem with it. I find it to be a rather naive idea. The kind of simple but totally impractical solution that will readily pop into one's head. You demonstrate one the things that I and I'm sure many others find characterize conversations with self identified libertarians, and what gives the label a bad name. The firm belief that a system should be torn down because it is imperfect but no ideas to replace it beyond oversimplifications that don't address why the existing system was imperfect in the first place. The concentration of thought is on tearing down the system, and finding all sorts of reasons why it is bad, but expending little to no effort on a replacement solution. This focus also leads to the mischaracterization of the left's general position, which is not "more, simply more" but rather "can you please stop relentlessly trying to tear down the social safety net and instead focus on how to make it work better (and not then freak out if that may cost a little more)".


Thanks you for taking the time to type this out. This is pretty much exactly what i wanted to say, but I couldn't be bothered to take the time to type it all out, especially knowing that  the response is just going to be a digging in of the heels and more spouting of simpleminded libertarian platitudes..
 
2013-11-07 01:33:43 PM

Clever Neologism: slayer199: EWreckedSean: I want an EPA that can't create laws. When they create bad laws, there is little recourse. And by the way, the single biggest polluter by far the federal government.

This is the real problem with how these agencies are created.  The creation of laws should reside with Congress and Congress alone....no agency should have cart blanche to make up their own rules which have the force of law.  You can look at many federal agencies and see the same problem (FDA, FCC, etc).

That would require studious legislatures truly knowing the intricacy of multiple fields of study and expertise, and not just a bunch of lawyers and politicians.

The reason lobbyists and life-long civil servants have such a large impact on the government is they are the only ones who actually know about their industries and sectors.


Or instead they could have an advisory organization that provided the knowledge but the regulations themselves still be created by the body that is the only one that should be creating them is answerable to the people.
 
2013-11-07 01:34:59 PM

vygramul: Gulper Eel: A Republican will pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

A Democrat will pee on your leg and tell you you're racist/sexist/plutocratic for objecting to having your leg peed on.

A Libertarian will tell you to move your farking leg out of the way before he pees.

A Libertarian will pee on your leg and then tell you you should have moved your leg when you saw him unzipping his fly.


A Libertarian will piss in your drinking water and then tell you "tough shiat, the stream passes thorough my back yard. PRIVATE PROPERTY biatchEZ"
 
2013-11-07 01:34:59 PM

super_grass: FarkedOver: super_grass: Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.

Yet we as a species have the ability to make food not a need.  We choose not to do this.  Why is that? The answer is it is not profitable to feed everyone.  Some people have to die in order to profit.  That's a problem.

We certainly try to. The US is one of biggest government and private donors to poor countries. A good chunk of the problem is that food delivery and production is a complex logistical process that doesn't always happen in war-torn or dictator controlled areas.


Are you saying that many parts of the US are war-torn or controlled by a dictator?  Because there are still quite a few people starving here.
 
2013-11-07 01:35:45 PM

Clever Neologism: EWreckedSean:

This isn't no true scotsman, it is calling massive corporatism, that is intertwined with government at every level, suddenly libertarian when the farking federal reserve pushes policies that limit certain regulations. That in no way makes it libertarian. Sorry.

Libertarianism leads to corporatism, numb nuts.  Without a strong government, it cannot stand against against even more powerful influences, namely the wealthy capitalists and corporations, which then have undue influence in government via either campaign contributions at the top, or influence over the populace.

A political and economic system can be judged on how resilient it is to corrupting influences and decay by those who don't give a shiat about sustaining it.  Libertarianism, both big and little 'l', fail miserably at this metric, and is only pushed either by those who know this, and want to corrupt the system further, or the naive.  Which are you?


Corporations are the creation of government numb nuts, not libertarianism. More to the point, government IS the favorite tool of influence and corruption used by these entities, because it is the only one that has the ability to make law.
 
2013-11-07 01:36:25 PM

EWreckedSean: This isn't no true scotsman, it is calling massive corporatism, that is intertwined with government at every level, suddenly libertarian when the farking federal reserve pushes policies that limit certain regulations. That in no way makes it libertarian. Sorry.


What do you think the end result of removing government intervention and regulation of companies will be? They'll become even more of a de facto government than they already are. But whatever. I wasn't arguing the situation was caused by libertarian ideals, just that the situation itself was close to what a lot of libertarians say they want, companies given control over the markets with virtually no intervention. Well, they got that with part of the market for almost a decade and they almost collapsed the world economy.

There's this assumption among libertarians that if the government would just get out of companies' way they'd self regulate and do what's best for everyone because it's the best long term plan. But we saw what really happens when given that kind of power, they get theirs and get out. Completely short sighted money grabs with no regard to what happened down the road or how many regular people got farked over in the process. That's why I said it's a BS ideology.
 
2013-11-07 01:36:30 PM
Libertarian safety net:

/that's the joke
 
2013-11-07 01:36:34 PM

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: FarkedOver: super_grass: Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.

Yet we as a species have the ability to make food not a need.  We choose not to do this.  Why is that? The answer is it is not profitable to feed everyone.  Some people have to die in order to profit.  That's a problem.

We certainly try to. The US is one of biggest government and private donors to poor countries. A good chunk of the problem is that food delivery and production is a complex logistical process that doesn't always happen in war-torn or dictator controlled areas.

Are you saying that many parts of the US are war-torn or controlled by a dictator?  Because there are still quite a few people starving here.


And we have both a massive assistance program and one of the lowest household expenditures on food in the world.
 
2013-11-07 01:37:02 PM

FarkedOver: Jackson Herring: that;s actually a pretty nice alley

You think that's nice, check out the tools of the trade:

[factorydirectcraft.com image 450x306]


That's the classiest wire hanger I've ever seen.
 
2013-11-07 01:37:51 PM

grumpfuff: skullkrusher: Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties

You sometimes criticize Republicans. Therefore, you are automatically a Marxist commie America hater to some people around here.


I'll also defend conservatives against unfair criticism. That makes me a teabagger
 
2013-11-07 01:38:19 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: FarkedOver: Jackson Herring: that;s actually a pretty nice alley

You think that's nice, check out the tools of the trade:

[factorydirectcraft.com image 450x306]

That's the classiest wire hanger I've ever seen.


www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-11-07 01:38:28 PM

super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: FarkedOver: super_grass: Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.

Yet we as a species have the ability to make food not a need.  We choose not to do this.  Why is that? The answer is it is not profitable to feed everyone.  Some people have to die in order to profit.  That's a problem.

We certainly try to. The US is one of biggest government and private donors to poor countries. A good chunk of the problem is that food delivery and production is a complex logistical process that doesn't always happen in war-torn or dictator controlled areas.

Are you saying that many parts of the US are war-torn or controlled by a dictator?  Because there are still quite a few people starving here.

And we have both a massive assistance program and one of the lowest household expenditures on food in the world.


Oh, so everything's OK then.
 
2013-11-07 01:38:29 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: FarkedOver: Jackson Herring: that;s actually a pretty nice alley

You think that's nice, check out the tools of the trade:

[factorydirectcraft.com image 450x306]

That's the classiest wire hanger I've ever seen.


That's for the classy lady about town.  The rest of the women get a rusty wire hanger. Fark em.
 
2013-11-07 01:39:09 PM
lbre.stanford.edu
LIBERTARIAN PAINT AND MOTOR OIL DISPOSAL SITE
 
2013-11-07 01:39:46 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: vygramul: Gulper Eel: A Republican will pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

A Democrat will pee on your leg and tell you you're racist/sexist/plutocratic for objecting to having your leg peed on.

A Libertarian will tell you to move your farking leg out of the way before he pees.

A Libertarian will pee on your leg and then tell you you should have moved your leg when you saw him unzipping his fly.

A Libertarian will piss in your drinking water and then tell you "tough shiat, the stream passes thorough my back yard. PRIVATE PROPERTY biatchEZ"


A first worlder would tell you to stop getting your drinking water straight from a stream
 
2013-11-07 01:40:06 PM

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: FarkedOver: super_grass: Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.

Yet we as a species have the ability to make food not a need.  We choose not to do this.  Why is that? The answer is it is not profitable to feed everyone.  Some people have to die in order to profit.  That's a problem.

We certainly try to. The US is one of biggest government and private donors to poor countries. A good chunk of the problem is that food delivery and production is a complex logistical process that doesn't always happen in war-torn or dictator controlled areas.

Are you saying that many parts of the US are war-torn or controlled by a dictator?  Because there are still quite a few people starving here.

And we have both a massive assistance program and one of the lowest household expenditures on food in the world.

Oh, so everything's OK then.


NO! YOU FOOL! What we need to do is leave it people to voluntarily help the poor.  THEN we deregulate the market and the invisible hand will take care of the rest.  It's really as easy as that.
 
2013-11-07 01:40:47 PM

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: FarkedOver: super_grass: Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.

Yet we as a species have the ability to make food not a need.  We choose not to do this.  Why is that? The answer is it is not profitable to feed everyone.  Some people have to die in order to profit.  That's a problem.

We certainly try to. The US is one of biggest government and private donors to poor countries. A good chunk of the problem is that food delivery and production is a complex logistical process that doesn't always happen in war-torn or dictator controlled areas.

Are you saying that many parts of the US are war-torn or controlled by a dictator?  Because there are still quite a few people starving here.

And we have both a massive assistance program and one of the lowest household expenditures on food in the world.

Oh, so everything's OK then.


I didn't say that. I just see a different problem and solution.
 
2013-11-07 01:44:06 PM

skullkrusher: Ctrl-Alt-Del: vygramul: Gulper Eel: A Republican will pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

A Democrat will pee on your leg and tell you you're racist/sexist/plutocratic for objecting to having your leg peed on.

A Libertarian will tell you to move your farking leg out of the way before he pees.

A Libertarian will pee on your leg and then tell you you should have moved your leg when you saw him unzipping his fly.

A Libertarian will piss in your drinking water and then tell you "tough shiat, the stream passes thorough my back yard. PRIVATE PROPERTY biatchEZ"

A first worlder would tell you to stop getting your drinking water straight from a stream


The odds of a libertarian country being "first world":

f0.bcbits.com
 
2013-11-07 01:44:42 PM

xalres: EWreckedSean: This isn't no true scotsman, it is calling massive corporatism, that is intertwined with government at every level, suddenly libertarian when the farking federal reserve pushes policies that limit certain regulations. That in no way makes it libertarian. Sorry.

What do you think the end result of removing government intervention and regulation of companies will be? They'll become even more of a de facto government than they already are. But whatever. I wasn't arguing the situation was caused by libertarian ideals, just that the situation itself was close to what a lot of libertarians say they want, companies given control over the markets with virtually no intervention. Well, they got that with part of the market for almost a decade and they almost collapsed the world economy.

There's this assumption among libertarians that if the government would just get out of companies' way they'd self regulate and do what's best for everyone because it's the best long term plan. But we saw what really happens when given that kind of power, they get theirs and get out. Completely short sighted money grabs with no regard to what happened down the road or how many regular people got farked over in the process. That's why I said it's a BS ideology.


Companies being able to act with government support at all levels, but with controls that go with that support stripped out isn't libertarianism remotely, and that is my point. A huge factor in the crash was that the federal government made credit way cheaper than the market supported, which led to massive amounts of borrowing that made little financial sense. You are taking a reduction of regulations, one little part, throwing away the millions of other way the government is involved, and calling it libertarianism. You are acting like regulation is the only way the government interferes with the market.
 
2013-11-07 01:45:37 PM
www.independent.co.uk
Oh I'm sorry you're starving? You want something to eat? FARK YOU, PAY ME!
 
2013-11-07 01:46:17 PM

karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.


hmmm All the livertardians I know are conservatards.
 
2013-11-07 01:48:07 PM

Felgraf: karnal: FarkedOver: karnal: FarkedOver: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

That is the problem with libertarians.  Everything boils down to dollars and cents.  They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it.  The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops.  Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

So be like Obama and just borrow the money from China to get your X product?  Obviously it was his fuzzy math that figured out Obamacare.

Here's a guy who thinks I give a shiat about Obama's shiatty policies.

After the period at the end of this sentence, I will never give you another thought.

We get it, you really don't like it when people don't match up to your assumptions of them, it harms your little worldview-bubble.


Then you don't get it.
 
2013-11-07 01:54:11 PM
the last two big L party nominations have been recycled republican offerings - does anybody involved with libertarian politics reeeeeaaaaaaaallly get to be too surprised when Republicans treat you like you're the conservative farm league (like this article) when......you are the conservative farm league?
 
Bf+
2013-11-07 01:57:19 PM

karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.


...at the expense of ethics.
 
2013-11-07 01:58:49 PM

HotWingConspiracy: They even disagree on what libertarianism is, I don't think they've exactly coalesced around the Max Bordersian definition.


So they disagree on basically every important issue, except they all want to abolish taxes.
 
2013-11-07 01:59:31 PM

xalres: There's this assumption among libertarians that if the government would just get out of companies' way they'd self regulate and do what's best for everyone because it's the best long term plan. But we saw what really happens when given that kind of power, they get theirs and get out. Completely short sighted money grabs with no regard to what happened down the road or how many regular people got farked over in the process. That's why I said it's a BS ideology.


the assumption of rational actors is the best political pixie dust the world has ever seen.

no evidence ever shakes it, even when it is supplied daily.
 
2013-11-07 02:01:33 PM
It's not like anyone was thrilled to vote for John McCain that day. But as bad as McCain was (and still is), he was better than Barack Obama. At least that's a conclusion you'd expect anyone who supported liberty to draw.

That's gold Jerry.  Gold!
 
2013-11-07 02:05:34 PM

physt: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

hmmm All the livertardians I know are conservatards.


Maybe you should get out more....?
 
2013-11-07 02:06:09 PM

heap: xalres: There's this assumption among libertarians that if the government would just get out of companies' way they'd self regulate and do what's best for everyone because it's the best long term plan. But we saw what really happens when given that kind of power, they get theirs and get out. Completely short sighted money grabs with no regard to what happened down the road or how many regular people got farked over in the process. That's why I said it's a BS ideology.

the assumption of rational actors is the best political pixie dust the world has ever seen.

no evidence ever shakes it, even when it is supplied daily.



But these same people suddenly become perfectly rational and all-knowing and supremely ethical when they vote.

Or when they work in a government job.

Because people are so smart and decent, generally.  They can't be trusted with the disposition of their own property, so naturally the solution is to give them power over the disposition of other people's property, too.

Brilliant, dude.  Cunning plan.
 
2013-11-07 02:10:16 PM

Phinn: But these same people suddenly become perfectly rational and all-knowing and supremely ethical when they vote.

Or when they work in a government job.

Because people are so smart and decent, generally.  They can't be trusted with the disposition of their own property, so naturally the solution is to give them power over the disposition of other people's property, too.

Brilliant, dude.  Cunning plan.


or maybe one could actually assess what happens and act accordingly - but no, doggedly pretending the assumption of rational actors has some basis in reality because it feels good makes more sense.

remember that week when alan greenspan said that there were some flaws in his assumptions? that was the 1 singular week where it was acceptable for a loon to admit this crux of their philosophy is worthless - and it only took the near destruction of the entire economy to get that 1 week vacation to reality. go figger, eh?
 
2013-11-07 02:10:33 PM

karnal: physt: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

hmmm All the livertardians I know are conservatards.

Maybe you should get out more....?


It certainly speaks volumes for someone to say that the only people of a type they know are extremists.

That or disingenuous.
 
2013-11-07 02:13:07 PM

Bf+: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

...at the expense of ethics.


Even that much isn't true - the only libertarian that comes to mind with respectable economic credentials would be Hayek (and those who subscribe to his philosophies). Beyond that, self-proclaimed "libertarians" will be among the most economically illiterate people you'll ever find.
 
2013-11-07 02:13:24 PM

lockers: The idea that the federal government exist to protect and defend individual freedom is a mythical fantasy. The reason we have a federal government is to govern the states. We, thankfully, included the bill of rights to limit how it can govern. Make no mistake, as passed, the constitution limited the government from taking your liberties in no way. We had to amend it to get those liberties that we enumerated. It wasn't even till the reformation that we even applied those rights to individual states. It took a civil war and abolishment to guarentee states respected individual liberty. Think on that a minute.


You may want to re-read the Constitution sometime.  The government is granted power, the people have Rights.  Read the Federalist Papers (Federalist 84).  Alexander Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights stating that if such a Bill of Rights were added that it could be interpreted that the People ONLY had those rights.   "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

The 9th and 10th Amendments were a compromise.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

I don't know how you can make that assumption that the People are subservient to the government.  By your opinion, the People have no rights and are only granted rights by the government.
 
2013-11-07 02:16:43 PM

Biological Ali: Beyond that, self-proclaimed "libertarians" will be among the most economically illiterate people you'll ever find.


kinda, but it's more a side effect of the larger problem - there is only 1 perspective - theirs. viewing something like macro-economics thru a lens of singular personal benefit isn't really illiteracy, it's treating your diary like it's porn. or something.
 
2013-11-07 02:19:59 PM

heap: or maybe one could actually assess what happens and act accordingly - but no, doggedly pretending the assumption of rational actors has some basis in reality because it feels good makes more sense.



I don't pretend.  I don't assume.  I have never subscribed to the idea of universal rationality, and have long since figured out that the whole "rational actor" idea is just a massive strawman argument, invented to justify more authoritarianism.

How is it that people are so irrational and mean-spirited and downright evil that they can't be trusted with their economic freedom, and a government must manage it for them, but that the outcome of every vote by these very same people is presumed to be wise and just and beneficent?

People learn to be rational when their irrationality comes with a cost.  The more immediate and large the cost of irrationality, the more time and energy people invest in learning how to behave rationally (and how to obtain accurate and useful information).
 
2013-11-07 02:21:21 PM

Phinn: heap: xalres: There's this assumption among libertarians that if the government would just get out of companies' way they'd self regulate and do what's best for everyone because it's the best long term plan. But we saw what really happens when given that kind of power, they get theirs and get out. Completely short sighted money grabs with no regard to what happened down the road or how many regular people got farked over in the process. That's why I said it's a BS ideology.

the assumption of rational actors is the best political pixie dust the world has ever seen.

no evidence ever shakes it, even when it is supplied daily.

But these same people suddenly become perfectly rational and all-knowing and supremely ethical when they vote.

Or when they work in a government job.

Because people are so smart and decent, generally.  They can't be trusted with the disposition of their own property, so naturally the solution is to give them power over the disposition of other people's property, too.

Brilliant, dude.  Cunning plan.


Exactly.
 
2013-11-07 02:21:22 PM

slayer199: lockers: The idea that the federal government exist to protect and defend individual freedom is a mythical fantasy. The reason we have a federal government is to govern the states. We, thankfully, included the bill of rights to limit how it can govern. Make no mistake, as passed, the constitution limited the government from taking your liberties in no way. We had to amend it to get those liberties that we enumerated. It wasn't even till the reformation that we even applied those rights to individual states. It took a civil war and abolishment to guarentee states respected individual liberty. Think on that a minute.

You may want to re-read the Constitution sometime.  The government is granted power, the people have Rights.  Read the Federalist Papers (Federalist 84).  Alexander Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights stating that if such a Bill of Rights were added that it could be interpreted that the People ONLY had those rights.   "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

The 9th and 10th Amendments were a compromise.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited ...


i39.tinypic.com
 
2013-11-07 02:22:31 PM

heap: the last two big L party nominations have been recycled republican offerings - does anybody involved with libertarian politics reeeeeaaaaaaaallly get to be too surprised when Republicans treat you like you're the conservative farm league (like this article) when......you are the conservative farm league?


Well they're either nutters (like the lady who argued for the legalization of child porn) or has-been Republicans like Bob Barr.
 
2013-11-07 02:23:35 PM

skullkrusher: grumpfuff: skullkrusher: Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties

You sometimes criticize Republicans. Therefore, you are automatically a Marxist commie America hater to some people around here.

I'll also defend conservatives against unfair criticism. That makes me a teabagger


Which is why I'm sympathetic to you at times. Got called a teatard for saying "Christie's not ALL bad, he did a few good things."

/also been called a Christo-facist for pointing out problems in atheist arguments
 
2013-11-07 02:24:09 PM

Phinn: heap: or maybe one could actually assess what happens and act accordingly - but no, doggedly pretending the assumption of rational actors has some basis in reality because it feels good makes more sense.

I don't pretend.  I don't assume.  I have never subscribed to the idea of universal rationality, and have long since figured out that the whole "rational actor" idea is just a massive strawman argument, invented to justify more authoritarianism.

How is it that people are so irrational and mean-spirited and downright evil that they can't be trusted with their economic freedom, and a government must manage it for them, but that the outcome of every vote by these very same people is presumed to be wise and just and beneficent?

People learn to be rational when their irrationality comes with a cost.  The more immediate and large the cost of irrationality, the more time and energy people invest in learning how to behave rationally (and how to obtain accurate and useful information).


I never got the rational actor thing either. And if people aren't rational, why even give them democracy or trust the same irrational people in government?

Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.
 
2013-11-07 02:24:09 PM

heap: slayer199: lockers: The idea that the federal government exist to protect and defend individual freedom is a mythical fantasy. The reason we have a federal government is to govern the states. We, thankfully, included the bill of rights to limit how it can govern. Make no mistake, as passed, the constitution limited the government from taking your liberties in no way. We had to amend it to get those liberties that we enumerated. It wasn't even till the reformation that we even applied those rights to individual states. It took a civil war and abolishment to guarentee states respected individual liberty. Think on that a minute.

You may want to re-read the Constitution sometime.  The government is granted power, the people have Rights.  Read the Federalist Papers (Federalist 84).  Alexander Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights stating that if such a Bill of Rights were added that it could be interpreted that the People ONLY had those rights.   "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

The 9th and 10th Amendments were a compromise.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor ...



Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong." 
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest." 
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" 
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
 
2013-11-07 02:25:50 PM
i47.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-07 02:26:03 PM

EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


Time for... THE PYRAMID:

fablegod.com
 
2013-11-07 02:26:16 PM

Phinn: that the whole "rational actor" idea is just a massive strawman argument, invented to justify more authoritarianism.


....so somebody came along and made that a central tenet of libertarian economics to like....trick you, or something?

Phinn: How is it that people are so irrational and mean-spirited and downright evil that they can't be trusted with their economic freedom, and a government must manage it for them, but that the outcome of every vote by these very same people is presumed to be wise and just and beneficent?


you must practice at missing the point.  the person doing long term damage for short term personal benefit IS ACTING RATIONALLY. the concept of a rational actor isn't just pixie dust for political/economic reasons, it's an absolute mis-read of the situation. intentionally.
 
2013-11-07 02:27:06 PM

EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem


i didnt' tell the guy to be a walking cartoon. that's on him.
 
2013-11-07 02:31:43 PM

Fart_Machine: heap: the last two big L party nominations have been recycled republican offerings - does anybody involved with libertarian politics reeeeeaaaaaaaallly get to be too surprised when Republicans treat you like you're the conservative farm league (like this article) when......you are the conservative farm league?

Well they're either nutters (like the lady who argued for the legalization of child porn) or has-been Republicans like Bob Barr.


or gary johnson. or ron paul.

again, i don't know why anybody could be surprised when party republicans treat libertarians like they were the double A league...when as a political party,  that's exactly what they set out to be, all too often.
 
2013-11-07 02:33:08 PM

super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.


No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?
 
2013-11-07 02:34:00 PM

heap: Phinn: that the whole "rational actor" idea is just a massive strawman argument, invented to justify more authoritarianism.

....so somebody came along and made that a central tenet of libertarian economics to like....trick you, or something?

Phinn: How is it that people are so irrational and mean-spirited and downright evil that they can't be trusted with their economic freedom, and a government must manage it for them, but that the outcome of every vote by these very same people is presumed to be wise and just and beneficent?

you must practice at missing the point.  the person doing long term damage for short term personal benefit IS ACTING RATIONALLY. the concept of a rational actor isn't just pixie dust for political/economic reasons, it's an absolute mis-read of the situation. intentionally.



It's not a central tenet of libertarian economics.  See how strawmen work?  They're so easy to beat up!

There is no "libertarian economics," by the way.  Just economics.  Right and wrong economics.

Economics happens to illuminate the astronomical costs of Statist (i.e., aggressively violent) interference and control over people's lives, which is why I advocate for a more scientific, rational approach to Statism (i.e., approaching "none"), for the economic benefit of humanity, but that's only because reality says it's beneficial, not me.
 
2013-11-07 02:34:20 PM

grumpfuff: skullkrusher: grumpfuff: skullkrusher: Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties

You sometimes criticize Republicans. Therefore, you are automatically a Marxist commie America hater to some people around here.

I'll also defend conservatives against unfair criticism. That makes me a teabagger

Which is why I'm sympathetic to you at times. Got called a teatard for saying "Christie's not ALL bad, he did a few good things."

/also been called a Christo-facist for pointing out problems in atheist arguments


The problem with Internet atheists is the same as the problem with RL Evangelicals. The unwavering desire to tell people what you do or do not believe. No one gives a fark except those two groups.
 
2013-11-07 02:34:56 PM

heap: EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem

i didnt' tell the guy to be a walking cartoon. that's on him.


Yeah those silly cartoon libertarians who have the audacity to bring up history. What a joke.
 
2013-11-07 02:35:26 PM

Phinn: There is no "libertarian economics," by the way.


sweet zombie jesus, you're all the way down the rabbit hole, aren't you?
 
2013-11-07 02:36:02 PM

EWreckedSean: heap: EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem

i didnt' tell the guy to be a walking cartoon. that's on him.

Yeah those silly cartoon libertarians who have the audacity to bring up history. What a joke.


you get cranky when the shoe fits, don't you?
 
2013-11-07 02:36:58 PM

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?


Ever seen a bad restaurant or company go out of business?
 
2013-11-07 02:37:00 PM

EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


Where does ad hominem come in, I refuted his argument.
 
2013-11-07 02:39:35 PM

heap: slayer199: lockers: The idea that the federal government exist to protect and defend individual freedom is a mythical fantasy. The reason we have a federal government is to govern the states. We, thankfully, included the bill of rights to limit how it can govern. Make no mistake, as passed, the constitution limited the government from taking your liberties in no way. We had to amend it to get those liberties that we enumerated. It wasn't even till the reformation that we even applied those rights to individual states. It took a civil war and abolishment to guarentee states respected individual liberty. Think on that a minute.

You may want to re-read the Constitution sometime.  The government is granted power, the people have Rights.  Read the Federalist Papers (Federalist 84).  Alexander Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights stating that if such a Bill of Rights were added that it could be interpreted that the People ONLY had those rights.   "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

The 9th and 10th Amendments were a compromise.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor ...


Can't refute?  Just post a cartoon that is a weak caricature of libertarians and achieve the admiration of those that disagree with libertarianism and also can't refute an argument.
 
2013-11-07 02:40:13 PM
Wow...they're really butthurt about Cucinnelli losing huh?

They don't understand that the main reason so many people voted for Sarvis was because the Cooch was a walking trainwreck and McAlluffe wasn't that much better.
 
2013-11-07 02:40:23 PM

slayer199: ."

Where does ad hominem come in, I refuted his argument.


i believe he was copypasta'ing in response to my copypasta. or not. really at this point, it ceases to matter.
 
2013-11-07 02:40:33 PM

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?



Market competition is not like competition in the biological sense.  It is, in practice, a competition between producers for the privilege of cooperating voluntarily with consumers.  It's a competition to see who can cooperate with consumers the most.

The results of that competition are proof positive of who is better at meeting consumer preferences.  Is that "rational" in the grand, global sense?  Not really, and it really doesn't matter, since it doesn't really matter how rational those consumption preferences are to begin with.
 
2013-11-07 02:41:21 PM

heap: EWreckedSean: heap: EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem

i didnt' tell the guy to be a walking cartoon. that's on him.

Yeah those silly cartoon libertarians who have the audacity to bring up history. What a joke.

you get cranky when the shoe fits, don't you?


Yes, that was a wonderfully well fitting ad hominem attack. Here comes the crank. Lol.
 
2013-11-07 02:41:22 PM

super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?

Ever seen a bad restaurant or company go out of business?


Have you ever seen a bad restaurant or company succeed?  I certainly have.
 
2013-11-07 02:41:29 PM

slayer199: Can't refute?  Just post a cartoon that is a weak caricature of libertarians


dude, your first statement was 'you should read the constitution' and then followed up with pretending 1 statement from the federalist papers means you're a constitutional scholar - if you don't want to be mocked as a stereotype, you could always be less stereotypical.
 
2013-11-07 02:42:00 PM

slayer199: EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Where does ad hominem come in, I refuted his argument.


The cartoon was the ad hominem.
 
2013-11-07 02:43:26 PM

EWreckedSean: The cartoon was the ad hominem.


Ah...thanks
 
2013-11-07 02:44:27 PM

karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.


I guess.  If they skipped the lessons on negative externalities, fiat currency, and a bunch of other stuff.
 
2013-11-07 02:45:43 PM

EWreckedSean: The cartoon was the ad hominem.


Your mother is an ad hominem!
 
2013-11-07 02:45:58 PM

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?

Ever seen a bad restaurant or company go out of business?

Have you ever seen a bad restaurant or company succeed?  I certainly have.


And I do business with restaurants and companies that I like instead.
 
2013-11-07 02:46:02 PM

Mrtraveler01: They don't understand that the main reason so many people voted for Sarvis was because the Cooch was a walking trainwreck and McAlluffe wasn't that much better


that really is the twisted part of this election - whoever won will have to actually like...you know...govern. and i don't think either option was at all capable. short term, Democrats won, but now they have a money/power man with no actual governing experience tied around their ankles as they go for a swim. the guy isn't in office yet, so it's a bit early to be calling Pyrrhic victory, but it does kinda feel like it's just a matter of time.
 
2013-11-07 02:46:47 PM

heap: dude, your first statement was 'you should read the constitution' and then followed up with pretending 1 statement from the federalist papers means you're a constitutional scholar - if you don't want to be mocked as a stereotype, you could always be less stereotypical.


No, I was refuting his argument regarding his position that the Constitution was never written to protect and defend the rights of the People.  The Federalist papers were relevant as that clearly shows the intent of the founders that the People have Rights, and the government is granted powers....not the other way around.

Of course, if I made the claim and I didn't cite my sources, you'd be going off on how wrong I was and we exist to serve the government.
 
2013-11-07 02:48:46 PM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

I guess.  If they skipped the lessons on negative externalities, fiat currency, and a bunch of other stuff.


Don't forget fractional reserve banking.
 
2013-11-07 02:48:58 PM

super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?

Ever seen a bad restaurant or company go out of business?

Have you ever seen a bad restaurant or company succeed?  I certainly have.

And I do business with restaurants and companies that I like instead.


That's fine for you, but it also means that your point that "rewarding logical behavior and punishing illogical behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place" is bullshiat.  Glad we can agree on something.
 
2013-11-07 02:49:30 PM

slayer199: EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Where does ad hominem come in, I refuted his argument.


You didn't refute, you said I was ignorant, then went on to say something I said. It doesn't matter what the the framers had in mind, as passed the constitution did not limit the power over individual liberties. It took the bill of rights to do that. Where there aren't explicit limitations the government has governed as they see fit with limited regard for liberties not enumerated. In no way did you actually address my central point, the government is not here to defend individual liberties, rather it's reason detre is to govern the union of states.
 
2013-11-07 02:50:00 PM

slayer199: No, I was refuting his argument regarding his position that the Constitution was never written to protect and defend the rights of the People.  The Federalist papers were relevant as that clearly shows the intent of the founders that the People have Rights, and the government is granted powers....not the other way around.

Of course, if I made the claim and I didn't cite my sources, you'd be going off on how wrong I was and we exist to serve the government.


the funny part is the above makes perfect sense to you.
 
2013-11-07 02:52:58 PM

Biological Ali: Bf+: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

...at the expense of ethics.

Even that much isn't true - the only libertarian that comes to mind with respectable economic credentials would be Hayek (and those who subscribe to his philosophies). Beyond that, self-proclaimed "libertarians" will be among the most economically illiterate people you'll ever find.


A lot of politically ignorant people have jumped on the Libertarian bandwagon....libertarians then are much different than libertarians now -  Ayn Rand  was not a libertatian and her novel Atlas Shrugged was never intended to be their bible.  At some point the libertarian movement went crazy.
 
2013-11-07 02:53:59 PM

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?

Ever seen a bad restaurant or company go out of business?

Have you ever seen a bad restaurant or company succeed?  I certainly have.

And I do business with restaurants and companies that I like instead.

That's fine for you, but it also means that your point that "rewarding logical behavior and punishing illogical behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place" is bullshiat.  Glad we can agree on something.


How so? I got to support whoever I liked and see bad companies get culled. It sucks that the rest of society don't always choose exactly according to your personal standards but the system still works.
 
2013-11-07 02:57:13 PM

heap: Mrtraveler01: They don't understand that the main reason so many people voted for Sarvis was because the Cooch was a walking trainwreck and McAlluffe wasn't that much better

that really is the twisted part of this election - whoever won will have to actually like...you know...govern. and i don't think either option was at all capable. short term, Democrats won, but now they have a money/power man with no actual governing experience tied around their ankles as they go for a swim. the guy isn't in office yet, so it's a bit early to be calling Pyrrhic victory, but it does kinda feel like it's just a matter of time.


Yeah, McAllufie was pretty terrible. But if Cuccinelli won, he would've been starting his Tea Party crusade right away.

VA dodged a bullet.
 
2013-11-07 02:58:11 PM

super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?

Ever seen a bad restaurant or company go out of business?

Have you ever seen a bad restaurant or company succeed?  I certainly have.

And I do business with restaurants and companies that I like instead.

That's fine for you, but it also means that your point that "rewarding logical behavior and punishing illogical behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place" is bullshiat.  Glad we can agree on something.

How so? I got to support whoever I liked and see bad companies get culled. It sucks that the rest of society don't always choose exactly according to your personal standards but the system still works.


How so?  Because plenty of businesses act irrationally and still prosper - competition doesn't weed out irrationality.  Just because you (yes, THE super_grass) take your business elsewhere doesn't mean that those prosperous, irrational businesses fail.
 
2013-11-07 03:02:13 PM

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?

Ever seen a bad restaurant or company go out of business?

Have you ever seen a bad restaurant or company succeed?  I certainly have.

And I do business with restaurants and companies that I like instead.

That's fine for you, but it also means that your point that "rewarding logical behavior and punishing illogical behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place" is bullshiat.  Glad we can agree on something.

How so? I got to support whoever I liked and see bad companies get culled. It sucks that the rest of society don't always choose exactly according to your personal standards but the system still works.

How so?  Because plenty of businesses act irrationally and still prosper - competition doesn't weed out irrationality.  Just because you (yes, THE super_grass) take your business elsewhere doesn't mean that those prosperous, irrational businesses fail.


Those business might have done a lot of other things right too and provide value overall. There are animals with poor adaptions and politicians with flaws too, that doesn't make natural selection and democracy any less valid.
 
2013-11-07 03:02:45 PM

vygramul: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

I guess.  If they skipped the lessons on negative externalities, fiat currency, and a bunch of other stuff.

Don't forget fractional reserve banking.


Ah yes, the creation of money by "banksters" allowing them to privatize profit while socializing risk that liberals seem to adore
 
2013-11-07 03:02:51 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


I decided to review the theory of this young libertarian upstart and watched some My Little Pony and I see his point. Currently, I'm seeing the threat of government intrusion and their arbitrary limiting of resources upon the populous. The major conflict that this creates is solely the creation of the Sovreign upon her people. If she hadn't gotten involved and let the market rule the supplies then everyone would have their fair chance.

This has been a continuous trend throughout the series until I had a huge epiphany. After my sixth or eighth scotch, it dawned on me that I wasted a majority of my day on this dumb show
 
2013-11-07 03:03:15 PM
Libertarianism. Great on paper.  Terrible in practice.  Actually, it's terrible on paper as well.
 
2013-11-07 03:04:20 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


Beta male says what?
 
2013-11-07 03:04:22 PM
Yeah, who are these Liberals? Let Jon Stewart show you.

img855.imageshack.us

Sure, I know we're talking about Libertarians, but teabag Americans don't know the difference and group them as one (see some posts above).
So this little snack was for them.
 
2013-11-07 03:04:35 PM

FarkedOver: Libertarianism. Great on paper.  Terrible in practice.  Actually, it's terrible on paper as well.


But enough about Ayn Rand
 
2013-11-07 03:04:38 PM

sprawl15: dwrash: I used to identify with the Libertarian Party... but I'm now more along the lines of the Modern Whig party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Whig

the meaningful distinctions are:


He get's to avoid to avoid being teased like other libertarians while still being able to say both sides are bad.
 
2013-11-07 03:04:58 PM

lockers: slayer199: EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Where does ad hominem come in, I refuted his argument.

You didn't refute, you said I was ignorant, then went on to say something I said. It doesn't matter what the the framers had in mind, as passed the constitution did not limit the power over individual liberties. It took the bill of rights to do that. Where there aren't explicit limitations the government has governed as they see fit with limited regard for liberties not enumerated. In no way did you actually address my central point, the government is not here to defend individual ...


As to your 2nd point, I'd look to the declaration of independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "
 
2013-11-07 03:07:27 PM

FarkedOver: Libertarianism. Great on paper.  Terrible in practice.  Actually, it's terrible on paper as well.


It only works if everyone plays by the rules and abuse them for personal gain.

Since we all know that's impossible, it doesn't work.
 
2013-11-07 03:08:27 PM

Mrtraveler01: FarkedOver: Libertarianism. Great on paper.  Terrible in practice.  Actually, it's terrible on paper as well.

It only works if everyone plays by the rules and doesn't abuse them for personal gain.

Since we all know that's impossible, it doesn't work.


FTFM
 
2013-11-07 03:10:57 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!

All the libertarians I know are early-30s tech sector workers with bad beards who think they're so much smarter than everyone else and can simply solve all the world's problems by letting markets do everything.

Need to protect children from exploitation? Let kidnappers take them and sell them in the sex trade. If the parents care enough, they will hire mercenaries to get them back.

Want to open up a medical practice even though you're not a doctor? After ten of your patients die your Yelp reviews will be so bad you won't be able to stay in business.


This.

I was going to say that the libertarians I know aren't so much brilliant as they are convinced of their own brilliance.

I also don't see them wearing fedoras so much as the sort of cheesy fedora-esque "bush hats." (Hawaiian shirt optional)

Basically like this one...

img830.imageshack.us

Chubby, beardy, pasty guys who seem to have spent far too much of their childhoods on the outside looking in socially-speaking, and it has left them with something of a misanthropic streak and an ingrained habit of thinking "I don't need those people. I'm better than them anyway."

i163.photobucket.com 


And they're ALL white guys (no, I don't care about your one random black friend or some chick you know... those people are statistically-insignificant anomalies if they exist at all).

And they virtually all have upper-middle class upbringings and the opportunities that they have mostly stumbled into as members of the lucky sperm have confused them into believing that they are bold and dynamic achievers... Randian supermen held down by the looters and takers who are mooching off of THEIR geniius. (never mind that they mostly occupy middling cubicle-jockey positions at government agencies or someone else's company.
 
2013-11-07 03:22:12 PM

Mrtraveler01: FarkedOver: Libertarianism. Great on paper.  Terrible in practice.  Actually, it's terrible on paper as well.

It only works if everyone plays by the rules and abuse them for personal gain.

Since we all know that's impossible, it doesn't work.


Naw, man, that's anarchy. If something is abusive or fraudulent there can still be legal recourse or regulatory punishment.
 
2013-11-07 03:27:04 PM

Mrtraveler01: FarkedOver: Libertarianism. Great on paper.  Terrible in practice.  Actually, it's terrible on paper as well.

It only works if everyone plays by the rules and abuse them for personal gain.

Since we all know that's impossible, it doesn't work.


The best part is that isn't just the greedy sociopaths who abuse the lax regulatory environment for personal gain that fark up the theory...

Libertarians themselves fark it up immensely and are a huge example of why it would never work.

You're not supposed to root for the company that hires people at slave wages or dumps toxic chemicals in the river or charges you $50 for a USB cable just because they put a proprietary connector on it.

The people are supposed to be the counterbalance AGAINST that sort of greed, but libertarians are the ones who run around defending that shiat and saying shiat like "It's called business. They're in it to make money. What don't you understand?"

Yes, their goal is to make as much money as possible. Your goal is supposed to be keeping as much of your money as possible... not bending over, greasing up your hole, and saying "well played, gentlemen! well played, indeed!"
 
2013-11-07 03:37:34 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!


WOW. You can just feel the pure patheticness oozing from the computer screen. The fact that he's actually writing a paper about a kid's cartoon. Or the smug, rage inducing picture of him, a 12 year old in a fedora, just makes me.....GGGRRAAAHHHHAAANNNGGRRY!!!!! MUST CRUSH PUNY HIPSTER, PUNCH COMPUTER SCREEN TO MAKE IT FEEL PAIN!!!!

Ok, I'm good. God, the little shiat pisses me off. I kind of hope he does get his "no gov't" wish granted, in that civilization collapses and he gets dragged out of his parent's basement, his weak, vegan fed arm muscles snapping as he helplessly flails around. He had a Desert Eagle pistol, but tried to fire it "gangster style" and broke his jaw. Grabbing it, he attempted to fire, but it had been jammed. Because he had no firearms experience, he desperately pulled the trigger as the raiders closed in for the kill.

Holy Fark that got dark fast. Well point is he's a twat.
 
2013-11-07 03:37:53 PM

super_grass: Phinn: heap: or maybe one could actually assess what happens and act accordingly - but no, doggedly pretending the assumption of rational actors has some basis in reality because it feels good makes more sense.

I don't pretend.  I don't assume.  I have never subscribed to the idea of universal rationality, and have long since figured out that the whole "rational actor" idea is just a massive strawman argument, invented to justify more authoritarianism.

How is it that people are so irrational and mean-spirited and downright evil that they can't be trusted with their economic freedom, and a government must manage it for them, but that the outcome of every vote by these very same people is presumed to be wise and just and beneficent?

People learn to be rational when their irrationality comes with a cost.  The more immediate and large the cost of irrationality, the more time and energy people invest in learning how to behave rationally (and how to obtain accurate and useful information).

I never got the rational actor thing either. And if people aren't rational, why even give them democracy or trust the same irrational people in government?

Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.


"Rational Actor" is a term economist use.  There are scads of examples of seemingly normal people who behave in ways that make sense on an individual basis, but when done by many people can cause problems.

A classic example is a fisherman who upon seeing the price for fish fall responds by catching more fish to keep
his income up.  That's a good strategy as long as only a few fishermen employ it, but if every fishermen does it then the resulting glut of fish causes the price to drop even further, and if overfishing occurs, the fish population can be decimated for years to come.

A "rational" fisherman should switch to a different species or find a new line of work, but it's hard for an individual to see that.
 
2013-11-07 03:42:06 PM

Richard C Stanford: toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

WOW. You can just feel the pure patheticness oozing from the computer screen. The fact that he's actually writing a paper about a kid's cartoon. Or the smug, rage inducing picture of him, a 12 year old in a fedora, just makes me.....GGGRRAAAHHHHAAANNNGGRRY!!!!! MUST CRUSH PUNY HIPSTER, PUNCH COMPUTER SCREEN TO MAKE IT FEEL PAIN!!!!

Ok, I'm good. God, the little shiat pisses me off. I kind of hope he does get his "no gov't" wish granted, in that civilization collapses and he gets dragged out of his parent's basement, his weak, vegan fed arm muscles snapping as he helplessly flails around. He had a Desert Eagle pistol, but tried to fire it "gangster style" and broke his jaw. Grabbing it, he attempted to fire, but it had been jammed. Because he had no firearms experience, he desperately pulled the trigger as the raiders closed in for the kill.

Holy Fark that got dark fast. Well point is he's a twat.



He's going to be the sad boy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZqrHw7YV3Q
 
2013-11-07 03:50:48 PM

Gulper Eel: Thrag: So, you express the notion of starting a new program from scratch. You've got the burn it down part, but what do you build in its place? What are your ideas, the ideas Libertarians you are aware of, or the Libertarian party position on this issue? How can we improve SNAP, or what should it be replaced with that would be more effective?

Read upthread. I'll oversimplify what I already wrote - Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries. I see no reason why Walmart should get rich selling poor people boxes of taxpayer-subsidized Frosted Flakes that'll land them in diabeetusland 20 years from now.


Weren't you people shrieking bloody murder when it was disclosed that some people were buying produce at Trader Joe's with SNAP benefits?

Other than pelting them with blocks of government cheese and dried beans, you folks don't have anything constructive to say.
 
2013-11-07 03:53:03 PM

EWreckedSean: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "


How does that refute my argument?  You may want to bring up that people have unalienable rights...rights that come with being human, NOT granted by the government.
 
2013-11-07 03:56:17 PM

slayer199: EWreckedSean: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "

How does that refute my argument?  You may want to bring up that people have unalienable rights...rights that come with being human, NOT granted by the government.


With the lack of government, what prevents me from taking away your right to life?

Answer: nothing.  Rights are a social construct.  They are a result of enlightened self-interest.  We already know what a lack of government leads to: government.
 
2013-11-07 04:08:55 PM

ikanreed: slayer199: EWreckedSean: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "

How does that refute my argument?  You may want to bring up that people have unalienable rights...rights that come with being human, NOT granted by the government.

With the lack of government, what prevents me from taking away your right to life?

Answer: nothing.  Rights are a social construct.  They are a result of enlightened self-interest.  We already know what a lack of government leads to: government.


Says the guy who lumped himself in with an anarchist earlier
 
2013-11-07 04:11:21 PM

Thrag: However do you realize that you are creating a immense government infrastructure that will employ vast numbers of people. A single government run entity that produces (or procures) enough food, the logistics infrastructure to collect and transport all that food to distribution endpoints, and the soup kitchens and pantries to distribute the food, and an we'd still need the agency to keep track of what benefits people should be getting, enforcing the rules, and tracking down fraud. If you are a libertarian, that is one hell of a large government solution. If the answer then is to contract out all those operations to private companies, you have created huge opportunity for crony capitalism like abusing the contracting process and you still have a large government organization that is responsible for performing and overseeing the contracting process (and don't forget we still have the aforementioned bureaucracy for administering the benefits individuals get).

Compared to all this, the current SNAP program is astonishingly more free market/libertarian than your solution.


Fraud? It's a lot easier to swap a benefits card for booze than it is to swap a cabbage. Oversight turns out to be a whole lot easier when the program is distributing something that's not money.

As for the crony capitalism, that's what we have already - we're subsidizing crap on a massive scale. Since I'm not about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, or even the somewhat better than the status quo. If big agribusiness is involved more with broccoli than corn, that's a step in the right direction.

A lot of this "massive" infrastructure you mention should be kicked down to the states as it is. States handle unemployment insurance programs; they can handle food assistance.

For a solution that doesn't involve as much disruption but gets the job done, I suppose the SNAP program could be tweaked so that it's doled out not in dollar amounts, but in ingredient amounts.
 
2013-11-07 04:13:25 PM

Huggermugger: Weren't you people shrieking bloody murder when it was disclosed that some people were buying produce at Trader Joe's with SNAP benefits?


You people? Long as they're buying produce instead of MegaCarbSugarPops I couldn't care less where they shop.
 
2013-11-07 04:25:45 PM

Gulper Eel: Huggermugger: Weren't you people shrieking bloody murder when it was disclosed that some people were buying produce at Trader Joe's with SNAP benefits?

You people? Long as they're buying produce instead of MegaCarbSugarPops I couldn't care less where they shop.


But food deserts!
 
2013-11-07 04:26:20 PM

Gulper Eel: Thrag: However do you realize that you are creating a immense government infrastructure that will employ vast numbers of people. A single government run entity that produces (or procures) enough food, the logistics infrastructure to collect and transport all that food to distribution endpoints, and the soup kitchens and pantries to distribute the food, and an we'd still need the agency to keep track of what benefits people should be getting, enforcing the rules, and tracking down fraud. If you are a libertarian, that is one hell of a large government solution. If the answer then is to contract out all those operations to private companies, you have created huge opportunity for crony capitalism like abusing the contracting process and you still have a large government organization that is responsible for performing and overseeing the contracting process (and don't forget we still have the aforementioned bureaucracy for administering the benefits individuals get).

Compared to all this, the current SNAP program is astonishingly more free market/libertarian than your solution.

Fraud? It's a lot easier to swap a benefits card for booze than it is to swap a cabbage. Oversight turns out to be a whole lot easier when the program is distributing something that's not money.


Okay, so your solution might at best somewhat reduce the resources needed to police one type of fraud. That doesn't really make up for the immense logistics infrastructure required to implement direct food distribution.

As for the crony capitalism, that's what we have already - we're subsidizing crap on a massive scale. Since I'm not about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, or even the somewhat better than the status quo. If big agribusiness is involved more with broccoli than corn, that's a step in the right direction.

You aren't addressing the problem at all. This is just hand waving.

A lot of this "massive" infrastructure you mention should be kicked down to the states as it is. States handle unemployment insurance programs; they can handle food assistance.

This is a total non-answer. Kick it down to the states does not address the fact that a massive infrastructure must be created at some level. Kicking it down to the states will just make the overall bureaucracy larger since there will be redundancies among the 50 states. Your solutions will require larger expenses and more government.

This reply just reinforces my point. You start with a naive over simplistic thought out solution as a replacement once the existing system has been burned down. When questions or raised or flaws pointed out you are just spouting the first answer (or non-answer) that comes to mind. The focus is on burning shiat down with only a passing afterthought about what comes next. You've got stats and cites to support the tearing down of the system, but zero research in how to make things work well.

For a solution that doesn't involve as much disruption but gets the job done, I suppose the SNAP program could be tweaked so that it's doled out not in dollar amounts, but in ingredient amounts.

Okay, how would that work? Who gets to decide what and how much of each foodstuff a person receiving benefits can buy? We'd need a whole new system for tracking not just the money spent, but what ingredients it is spent on. Isn't doing this a larger, more intrusive, more complex, government solution? With these solutions you are kind of a terrible libertarian ;)
 
2013-11-07 04:27:14 PM
How dare the rest of the world blow itself up!  That's the Plutocrat Party's job!
 
2013-11-07 04:32:53 PM
It needs to be noted that there are already restrictions on what can be bought with SNAP benefits.

SNAP Eligible food items

The idea of having more narrow restrictions has come up in the past but has never been seen as practical, from the link:

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.
 
2013-11-07 04:34:10 PM

FarkedOver: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x331]
 LIBERTARIAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT


Aren't tent-cities strictly a product of the capitalist system?
 
2013-11-07 04:43:03 PM

JRoo: FarkedOver: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x331]
 LIBERTARIAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT

Aren't tent-cities strictly a product of the capitalist system?


No mad?
 
2013-11-07 04:44:16 PM
Well until they drop the whole replacing Government Tyranny with Corporate Tyranny you can count me out. The Fark you for being poor thing will never work. Until they recognize that corporations can be just a threat to personal freedoms and liberty as the government then its all condescending hypocritical garbage laced with racism with a sugar coat of legal weed.

 In fact the whole reason that the Libertarian movement is getting so much play now is beacuse of rich a-holes and wannabes who think Ayn Rand is gospel. ( Rupert Murdoch, John Stossel, Koch Brothers, Glenn Beck, Neil Boortz are Libertarians ..Nuff Said ) And Republicans who are trying to look cool.
 
2013-11-07 04:45:57 PM

Thrag: It needs to be noted that there are already restrictions on what can be bought with SNAP benefits.

SNAP Eligible food items

The idea of having more narrow restrictions has come up in the past but has never been seen as practical, from the link:

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.


Not to mention that the ones who advocate it have one unstated goal; punish the poor for the sin of being poor.
 
2013-11-07 04:46:46 PM

ItchyMcDoogle: Well until they drop the whole replacing Government Tyranny with Corporate Tyranny you can count me out. The Fark you for being poor thing will never work. Until they recognize that corporations can be just a threat to personal freedoms and liberty as the government then its all condescending hypocritical garbage laced with racism with a sugar coat of legal weed.

 In fact the whole reason that the Libertarian movement is getting so much play now is beacuse of rich a-holes and wannabes who think Ayn Rand is gospel. ( Rupert Murdoch, John Stossel, Koch Brothers, Glenn Beck, Neil Boortz are Libertarians ..Nuff Said ) And Republicans who are trying to look cool.


I think the idea is that you're supposed to create your own corporation.  One that makes it a priority to not be evil.  You know, like Google's founders did!
 
2013-11-07 04:47:59 PM

lockers: UNC_Samurai: I can't disagree. I went through a dumb college libertarian phase. Then I graduated and the real world slapped some sense into me. Between wising up and watching the political spectrum around me being distorted, I'm now pretty damn liberal.

Libertarians, like the Tea Party, are a group that espouses ideas that are contrary to what the individuals actually believe. I like jeffersonian liberalism, but I understand that as a practical matter progressive liberalism is more aligned to today's practical realities. It would be really "nice" if we could have a small central government, strong constitutional liberties and a strong self reliance. It is something that did work when this country was expanding, but these days we can't go back to the quaint world of homesteads. That is where libertarians get into trouble. They have ignored why we got where we are. Social justice, government oversight and restraint of rights were all necessary to have a functional and better society.


I ran this idea by one of my libertarian co-workers.  Making sure to point out that the Government funded research that went into funding the govt, and as such, provided a concrete foundation for his job today.  When I asked him if we'd have the, although fleeting, current state of the internet that allowed him his nice cushy job, his reply was simply "well.  the free market would have created it eventually".

Ugh.  He's absolutely intolerable.
 
2013-11-07 04:51:20 PM
Gulper Eel: "Fraud? It's a lot easier to swap a benefits card for booze than it is to swap a cabbage. Oversight turns out to be a whole lot easier when the program is distributing something that's not money."


As usual, the right-winger doesn't give a shiat about embezzlement or graft... only making sure the poors don't get any pleasure on his dime.
 
2013-11-07 04:54:57 PM

lockers: Thrag: It needs to be noted that there are already restrictions on what can be bought with SNAP benefits.

SNAP Eligible food items

The idea of having more narrow restrictions has come up in the past but has never been seen as practical, from the link:

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.

Not to mention that the ones who advocate it have one unstated goal; punish the poor for the sin of being poor.


I'm skeptical that the conclusion that it was costly and burdensome was the result of actual research and not the opposite unstated goal: Democrats fighting to keep the poor vote.

Show me a real conservative who thought it was a good idea but changed his mind once he saw how much it would cost and I'll be convinced.  (yes, how far fetched the idea of a "real conservative" is).
 
2013-11-07 04:59:11 PM

skullkrusher: ikanreed: slayer199: EWreckedSean: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "

How does that refute my argument?  You may want to bring up that people have unalienable rights...rights that come with being human, NOT granted by the government.

With the lack of government, what prevents me from taking away your right to life?

Answer: nothing.  Rights are a social construct.  They are a result of enlightened self-interest.  We already know what a lack of government leads to: government.

Says the guy who lumped himself in with an anarchist earlier


Yeah, that's sure what I did.  Yep.  I'm glad you're still angry about being a racist instead of addressing the fact that you're a racist.
 
2013-11-07 05:03:12 PM

serial_crusher: lockers: Thrag: It needs to be noted that there are already restrictions on what can be bought with SNAP benefits.

SNAP Eligible food items

The idea of having more narrow restrictions has come up in the past but has never been seen as practical, from the link:

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.

Not to mention that the ones who advocate it have one unstated goal; punish the poor for the sin of being poor.

I'm skeptical that the conclusion that it was costly and burdensome was the result of actual research and not the opposite unstated goal: Democrats fighting to keep the poor vote.

Show me a real conservative who thought it was a good idea but changed his mind once he saw how much it would cost and I'll be convinced.  (yes, how far fetched the idea of a "real conservative" is).


Nice hand wave. If not punishing the poor happens to keep the poor vote, that is just a happy coincidence. I personally think that the poor have committed no sin which they need to be punished for, therefore I have no need to limit how they prefer to eat.
 
2013-11-07 05:09:55 PM

ikanreed: skullkrusher: ikanreed: slayer199: EWreckedSean: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "

How does that refute my argument?  You may want to bring up that people have unalienable rights...rights that come with being human, NOT granted by the government.

With the lack of government, what prevents me from taking away your right to life?

Answer: nothing.  Rights are a social construct.  They are a result of enlightened self-interest.  We already know what a lack of government leads to: government.

Says the guy who lumped himself in with an anarchist earlier

Yeah, that's sure what I did.  Yep.  I'm glad you're still angry about being a racist instead of addressing the fact that you're a racist.


Racist? Oh are we back on this "sushi chef costumes are racist" kick? Thanks for reminding me when I learned you were a ninny. I knew that I knew that, just didn't recall the clincher. Thanks
 
2013-11-07 05:15:49 PM

Thrag: "Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries."

Okay, that's an alternative. However do you realize that you are creating a immense government infrastructure that will employ vast numbers of people. A single government run entity that produces (or procures) enough food, the logistics infrastructure to collect and transport all that food to distribution endpoints, and the soup kitchens and pantries to distribute the food, and an we'd still need the agency to keep track of what benefits people should be getting, enforcing the rules, and tracking down fraud. If you are a libertarian, that is one hell of a large government solution. If the answer then is to contract out all those operations to private companies, you have created huge opportunity for crony capitalism like abusing the contracting process and you still have a large government organization that is responsible for performing and overseeing the contracting process (and don't forget we still have the aforementioned bureaucracy for administering the benefits individuals get).

Compared to all this, the current SNAP program is astonishingly more free market/libertarian than your solution.

As someone on "the left" I find your idea impractical but I have zero ideological problem with it. I find it to be a rather naive idea. The kind of simple but totally impractical solution that will readily pop into one's head. You demonstrate one the things that I and I'm sure many others find characterize conversations with self identified libertarians, and what gives the label a bad name. The firm belief that a system should be torn down because it is imperfect but no ideas to replace it beyond oversimplifications that don't address why the existing system was imperfect in the first place. The concentration of thought is on tearing down the system, and finding all sorts of reasons why it is bad, but expending little to no effort on ...


I've always advocated replacing SNAP with something similar to the currently existing WIC.  Folks get a list of specific items they're allowed to buy each week.  They take that list down to the grocery store and get those items.  Store sends government the bill for however much those cost.  It cuts out a lot of the middle men you mentioned above there, but does introduce a little bit of reasonable overhead on its own.  Mainly we have to have a system that generates that list.
For a trivial solution that would suck, we could just make it a really basic list that applies exactly the same to everybody.  Beans and rice this week, potatoes and ramen noodles next week.  Even I'm not cruel enough to suggest that as an actual solution though.

A little more expensively we could take the meal planning software that already exists on the SNAP website (fark, I can't find the link now.  Somebody posted it in another one of these threads though)... SNAP recipients go to the site and plan their meals for the week, then it prints out their grocery list.  The software could easily enforce well rounded meals, and we could add interfaces for doctors notes etc for people on special diets.

The costs of updating the SNAP web site wouldn't be that bad as long as we didn't contract it to the same company who did healthcare.gov, and there would be some small costs to participating grocery stores to add list validation and reconciliation to their POSes.  They might have to make some changes to their inventory systems to make sure inventory items matched up with the generated lists, but a lot of that work has already been done for WIC compliance.
 
2013-11-07 05:20:31 PM
EWreckedSean:

That would require studious legislatures truly knowing the intricacy of multiple fields of study and expertise, and not just a bunch of lawyers and politicians.

Or instead they could have an advisory organization that provided the knowledge but the regulations themselves still be created by the body that is the only one that should be creating them is answerable to the people.


You mean like partisan think-tanks, and industry-led focus groups?  Sorry, I believe our representative government should be representative of knowledge and experience, and not just geography.

At least with Congress in more control of the regulations, it would give those slack asses more real work to do.... ah who am I kidding.  Politicians shouldn't be trusted with actually running things, just like MBAs shouldn't be administrating your servers.

EWreckedSean:

Corporations are the creation of government numb nuts, not libertarianism. More to the point, government IS the favorite tool of influence and corruption used by these entities, because it is the only one that has the ability to make law.

So are you implying that a libertarian government would not include corporations or limited liability partnerships?  Everything would be sole proprietorship?  And if corporations are the creation of government, how in the world can libertarians balk at regulation?   And of course the government is a favorite tool of influence and corruption for corporations.  It's the favorite tool of influence and corruption for all people who seek it on a massive scale.
 
2013-11-07 05:22:11 PM
i204.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-07 05:31:56 PM
serial_crusher:

I've always advocated replacing SNAP with something similar to the currently existing WIC.  Folks get a list of specific items they're allowed to buy each week.  They take that list down to the grocery store and get those items.  Store sends government the bill for however much those cost.  It cuts out a lot of the middle men you mentioned above there, but does introduce a little bit of reasonable overhead on its own.  Mainly we have to have a system that generates that list.
For a trivial solution that would suck, we could just make it a really basic list that applies exactly the same to everybody.  Beans and rice this week, potatoes and ramen noodles next week.  Even I'm not cruel enough to suggest that as an actual solution though.


I like this idea.  You'd have to have some sort of limit on price and item selection (yes, you can have bread.  You cannot have the tiny $10 artisan spring water sourdough), and make sure that grocery stores weren't gaming the system, but it'd be easier to audit 10,000 grocery stores than 1 million benefit recipients, at the same time you'd have to give them leeway for regional brand variance, etc. otherwise you'd quickly unbalance the market with winners and losers.

Those basic meals could be packaged up and sold to *everyone*, not just welfare recipients, with the government basically condoning said pacakge as "100% nutritionally complete for 1 adult for 1 week" or something: boom instant health program to reduce obesity and malnutrition... run it in cooperation with HHS (just make sure they don't build a website for it).
 
2013-11-07 06:40:36 PM

Thrag: It needs to be noted that there are already restrictions on what can be bought with SNAP benefits.

SNAP Eligible food items

The idea of having more narrow restrictions has come up in the past but has never been seen as practical, from the link:

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.


They don't genuinely want poor people to actually eat healthy foods - they couldn't possibly care less.  What they do want is to shame people who are receiving benefits, to force them to grovel in thanks, and preferably to not even allow them to shop in regular grocery stores with 'normal' (i.e., 'good') people, but instead to line up in a queue outside of the back of a trailer for distribution of spoiled produce and rotten meat, like those photos of bread lines from the Great Depression.
 
2013-11-07 07:25:10 PM
"Are you familiar with the concept of structural violence?"
"...no."



The Martian Manhandler
If anyone missed the Unfrozen Caveman Libertarian thread, they should really check out it's epicness.

The last post should have just been "/fark".


FarkedOver
Now, I love the state in as much as I want the working class (the majority of the people) to control the state to oppress the ruling class (the capitalists). It's only fair :)

fuuka.warosu.org


xria
in a practical sense the only real way to rein in the power of corporations is to have a relatively powerful government, which at least has to respond to public pressure to a reasonable extent in regulating and limiting their worst abuses. Obviously it is far from ideal, but "Never let perfect become the enemy of the good" or whatever the phrase is.

Ideally, there would be a high enough level of social and labor organization to be able to do things without having to resort to the government. According to what you're saying, there is no reason the government can't do its part to rein in corporate power WHILE we work toward that level of organization. Anyway, do you really believe the government has any interest in actually reining in corporate power? If not, there's only one thing that could force the government to do its job- if we achieve a high enough level of social and labor organization that they are forced to either shape up or be made obsolete. But then if we do manage to achieve that kind of organizational power, why continue relying on a governmental system which is fundamentally hostile? At that point, if the government acts because there is a credible threat of a revolution, why not follow through on that revolution and be done with the problem once and for all?


skullkrusher
I believe money=money and should have no impact on political power

Economic power IS political power. "Politics" does not necessarily mean "government".


lockers
Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.

Mutualism? Anti-State capitalist, but with homesteading allowed on abandoned property even if someone else once held a title to it.
I don't mind mutualists, mostly because they tend to have good politics when it comes to racism, sexism, nationalism, poverty, etc. By their deeds judge them etc.


Felgraf
I really don't think communism can work for large-scale societies, because, yes, of human nature at the moment. Most people may be happy to help folks they know/work to provide for friends and family, but when the people you're supposedly aiding are so far away as to become a total abstraction, I suspect it is much harder to give a fark.

True, but this can possibly be solved by making a 'large-scale society' which consists of a vast number of small groups, organized and coordinated through an acephalous federation. You don't need to know everyone in the world; just the individuals in the organizations you're part of and the general overview of your supply chain and the world news. That's Anarchism.
 
2013-11-07 08:32:23 PM

RanDomino: "Are you familiar with the concept of structural violence?"
"...no."



That's because it's horse sh*t.

"Structural violence" is just another word for "I want what you've got, and you're going to hit me when I try to steal it, aren't you?"

It's a pseudo-intellectual word for "hoarding."

It's an attempt to take the word "violence" (which sounds awfully mean and scary) and apply it to situations where someone dares assert a right of property over something.

Of course, the whole idea that "hoarding" or "property" is bad and wrong in the first place DEPENDS upon the idea that the person who wants to take the good in question has a superior right to it, and thus that the person resisting the taking has no right to do so.  In other words, it affirms the principle of property rights, in the same instance that it attempts to deny it.  Contradiction.  Fail.  QED.

Oh, and by the way, Peter Joseph's Great Big Wonderful Idea is ... that the entire world's production, of everything, should be taken over by robots and the entire distribution of the goods produced by our robot-made goods should be handled by a great big computer.

For reals.

No word yet on what the Super-Commie Super-Computer's actual PROGRAM is supposed to look like.  (I hope it gives me a b*tchin' car, though.)

Besides, weren't there at least three original Star Trek episodes and a couple of movies about this very concept?  I seem to remember them all ending badly for the humans.
 
2013-11-07 08:33:44 PM

Clever Neologism: serial_crusher:

I've always advocated replacing SNAP with something similar to the currently existing WIC.  Folks get a list of specific items they're allowed to buy each week.  They take that list down to the grocery store and get those items.  Store sends government the bill for however much those cost.  It cuts out a lot of the middle men you mentioned above there, but does introduce a little bit of reasonable overhead on its own.  Mainly we have to have a system that generates that list.
For a trivial solution that would suck, we could just make it a really basic list that applies exactly the same to everybody.  Beans and rice this week, potatoes and ramen noodles next week.  Even I'm not cruel enough to suggest that as an actual solution though.

I like this idea.  You'd have to have some sort of limit on price and item selection (yes, you can have bread.  You cannot have the tiny $10 artisan spring water sourdough), and make sure that grocery stores weren't gaming the system, but it'd be easier to audit 10,000 grocery stores than 1 million benefit recipients, at the same time you'd have to give them leeway for regional brand variance, etc. otherwise you'd quickly unbalance the market with winners and losers.

Those basic meals could be packaged up and sold to *everyone*, not just welfare recipients, with the government basically condoning said pacakge as "100% nutritionally complete for 1 adult for 1 week" or something: boom instant health program to reduce obesity and malnutrition... run it in cooperation with HHS (just make sure they don't build a website for it).


Yup, the meal planner could show you the total price of that week's groceries.  Then rich folks could pay 100% from their own pocket, dirt poor people could get it for free, folks in between could get a discount.  Problem is that would take some effort to synchronize the government's database with all the stores' prices, or you'd have to force the stores to price approved items equally.  Maybe better to show an approximate cost, then cap the partially subsidized people at some fraction of the estimate.

As for the cheap bread vs. expensive, WIC already does that.  There are particular brands of milk, cereal, baby food, etc that have a WIC approved sticker next to them.  When I was a cashier, WIC people were always a problem because the POS needed to know they were on WIC before we started ringing items up, and most people wouldn't let us know until it was time to pay so we'd have to void out the whole order and start over.  Eventually you could tell by the items and brands they were getting that they were going to be paying with WIC.  Every now and then I would offend a frugal person by asking.
 
2013-11-07 09:44:52 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: There is of course a balance required and power must ebb and flow as necessary, however in certain extreme situations there are times where member states cannot be trusted to govern themselves despite the representative structure in place because their governance or lack there of threatens the republic at large.


What are you babbling about?

Essentially self interest is trumped when it threatens the great societal whole.

Certainly so.  Of course the problem arises when individual rights are trampled by the whims of society with no rational basis.

We are basically at a point in our human collective history where we need to stop thinking individualistically and start thinking for the species.

You believe there is a contradiction there?

kxs401: Libertarianism IS a crazy extreme.


Tens of missions of people self-identify libertarian, and do not fit into the crazy extreme that you have determined it to be, therefore your definition is wrong.

What?

Well you're saying only the crazy anarcho Rand groupies are true libertarians.  Does it also follow that only Fred Phelps' family are true Christians?

super_grass: Shared ideology, cultural norms, centuries of legal precedent and philosophy?


All of those depend on the rights already existing.

I mean, there's no inherent thing called "human rights", it's just something that people universally agree on and have some utilitarian value. Kind of like the concept of right and wrong.

Right and wrong are right and wrong regardless of any agreement.  Slavery was just as wrong in 2000 BC as it is today.  Now we simply recognize it as such.

Felgraf: Says the person who went "OH, so you think the government should have UNLIMITED POWER?!"


Because that's what he was implying.  And you may have noticed that before you even replied  he confirmed that yes, that was in fact what he was saying, in those words.
 
2013-11-07 09:55:38 PM
Phinn
Of course, the whole idea that "hoarding" or "property" is bad and wrong in the first place DEPENDS upon the idea that the person who wants to take the good in question has a superior right to it, and thus that the person resisting the taking has no right to do so. In other words, it affirms the principle of property rights, in the same instance that it attempts to deny it. Contradiction. Fail. QED.

Which definition of "property" are you referring to?
 
2013-11-07 10:04:46 PM

ikanreed: Answer: nothing. Rights are a social construct. They are a result of enlightened self-interest. We already know what a lack of government leads to: government.


Thanks for proving my original point.  Government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, NOT usurp it.
 
2013-11-07 10:06:22 PM

EWreckedSean: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "


Which going back to my original point, government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, not usurp it.
 
2013-11-08 12:50:21 AM

slayer199: Government

should exists to protect and defend individual liberty, NOT usurp it.

FTFY
 
2013-11-08 04:24:24 AM

RanDomino: Phinn
Of course, the whole idea that "hoarding" or "property" is bad and wrong in the first place DEPENDS upon the idea that the person who wants to take the good in question has a superior right to it, and thus that the person resisting the taking has no right to do so. In other words, it affirms the principle of property rights, in the same instance that it attempts to deny it. Contradiction. Fail. QED.

Which definition of "property" are you referring to?


The right to control the use of an object.
 
2013-11-08 04:41:54 AM

The Martian Manhandler: [www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]


I simply have to read that strip in full every time someone posts it.
 
2013-11-08 07:49:57 AM

technicolor-misfit: Gulper Eel: "Fraud? It's a lot easier to swap a benefits card for booze than it is to swap a cabbage. Oversight turns out to be a whole lot easier when the program is distributing something that's not money."


As usual, the right-winger doesn't give a shiat about embezzlement or graft... only making sure the poors don't get any pleasure on his dime.

Well he cares about embezzlement and graft when it's his books that are getting audited by the men in the suits. But then it's only enough to decriminalize his own graft.

 
2013-11-08 08:26:01 AM

technicolor-misfit: As usual, the right-winger doesn't give a shiat about embezzlement or graft... only making sure the poors don't get any pleasure on his dime.


You're going to have to reconcile that talking point with the "evil megafood corporations are addicting people to unhealthy food" talking point.

...unless the position of subsidizing and then taxing or banning heavily-processed food somehow makes sense in your world.
 
2013-11-08 09:58:47 AM
RanDomino:

I like you man, I really do, but I don't know why you have such a raging hard-on for Bakunin.  The man advocated no transitional government after a workers revolution.  That has happened exactly 0 times.  He advocated not working within the system to make the workers life easier, i.e. fighting to lower hours spent at work.  He formed secret societies trying to co-opt the first international, he failed.  On top of all this he was a raging anti-Semite.  He was probably an anti-Semite because Marx was born Jewish, but that is pure speculation.
 
2013-11-08 10:04:17 AM

Gulper Eel: technicolor-misfit: As usual, the right-winger doesn't give a shiat about embezzlement or graft... only making sure the poors don't get any pleasure on his dime.

You're going to have to reconcile that talking point with the "evil megafood corporations are addicting people to unhealthy food" talking point.

...unless the position of subsidizing and then taxing or banning heavily-processed food somehow makes sense in your world.



Only if I subscribe to and promote that talking point.
 
2013-11-08 10:22:27 AM

FarkedOver: RanDomino:

I like you man, I really do, but I don't know why you have such a raging hard-on for Bakunin.  The man advocated no transitional government after a workers revolution.  That has happened exactly 0 times.  He advocated not working within the system to make the workers life easier, i.e. fighting to lower hours spent at work.  He formed secret societies trying to co-opt the first international, he failed.  On top of all this he was a raging anti-Semite.  He was probably an anti-Semite because Marx was born Jewish, but that is pure speculation.


Furthermore:

memecrunch.com
Those sailors got what they deserved.
 
2013-11-08 10:43:46 AM
I like Ran Domino too, even though he's completely wrong on some major points. His ideology is infinitely preferable to the pap spewed by the hordes of professional moderates on Fark, whose most complex thought consists of "Both sides are bad! The best idea must be somewhere in the middle!"

That sort of throw-away comment (repeated daily around here) is a non-thought. A non-principle. It's the negation of rationality and principle altogether. Its proponents go about their lives assuming that the political opinions of others must somehow average into something approaching truth.

The Creed of the Moderate is a sentiment that says nothing, posits nothing, proves nothing, and is only notable as an exceptional way to avoid thinking.
 
2013-11-08 10:54:05 AM
Phinn
The right to control the use of an object.

Based on...?


FarkedOver
The man advocated no transitional government after a workers revolution. That has happened exactly 0 times.

Tell me about all the times a transitional government scheme has resulted in worldwide communism.
Shall I list times that people have directly organized on collectivized terms without an institution of authority, in the wake of a social rupture (and then, often, get crushed by Marxists who run in screaming, "NO, NO, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!")?

Furthermore:

Really, the old "ties to the French" crap? Yes, there were French spies in Kronstadt delivering reports to their superiors. But there is zero evidence that they had any input in the decision to revolt.

And these guys were total "reactionaries" as you can see from their demands:

1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets; the present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be held by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda for all workers and peasants before the elections.
2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant associations.
4. The organisation, at the latest on 10 March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
6. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.
7. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces; no political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In place of the political section, various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
10. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups; the abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.
11. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.
12. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.
13. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
14. We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised, provided it does not utilise wage labour.

Look at that list. Why, they're practically calling for the reintroduction of feudalism.

He advocated not working within the system to make the workers life easier, i.e. fighting to lower hours spent at work.

"Not working within the system" meaning not using the State, which is inherently an institution of oppression and exploitation of workers.

He formed secret societies trying to co-opt the first international

Right, "secret societies". As in "openly advocating his position from the start". Oh and BTW he was right about the Marxist political strategy leading to Statist authoritarianism.
 
2013-11-08 10:58:54 AM

Phinn: I like Ran Domino too, even though he's completely wrong on some major points. His ideology is infinitely preferable to the pap spewed by the hordes of professional moderates on Fark, whose most complex thought consists of "Both sides are bad! The best idea must be somewhere in the middle!"

That sort of throw-away comment (repeated daily around here) is a non-thought. A non-principle. It's the negation of rationality and principle altogether. Its proponents go about their lives assuming that the political opinions of others must somehow average into something approaching truth.

The Creed of the Moderate is a sentiment that says nothing, posits nothing, proves nothing, and is only notable as an exceptional way to avoid thinking.


Ran's flaw in thinking is that he believes the bourgeois will simply just vanish.  Marxist understand that, that has NEVER happened and you need a workers state to protect the gains of any workers revolution.  Simply having a revolution and resting on your laurels is a great way to die.

Bakunin's thinking of man and freedom was short-sighted at best.  He saw man as a natural species and defines freedom as acting naturally.  Marx was correct in his analysis that man constantly strives to lift himself/herself above nature.  Man uses nature to their will and that freedom is working collectively and acting rationally.

Capitalists will point out that this is not the way the world works.  Marx would also agree with you.  Marx would go on to tell you that the point isn't to explain how the world works, the point is to change how the world works.  Marx believes that man is perfectly capable of making the rational choice to work together for the betterment of everyone.  To suggest man cannot is not giving man enough credit.
 
2013-11-08 11:06:46 AM

RanDomino: Tell me about all the times a transitional government scheme has resulted in worldwide communism.
Shall I list times that people have directly organized on collectivized terms without an institution of authority, in the wake of a social rupture (and then, often, get crushed by Marxists who run in screaming, "NO, NO, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!")?


You blame anarchists failures on Marxists.  I blame Marxist failures on capitalists...

RanDomino: Really, the old "ties to the French" crap? Yes, there were French spies in Kronstadt delivering reports to their superiors. But there is zero evidence that they had any input in the decision to revolt.

And these guys were total "reactionaries" as you can see from their demands:

1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets; the present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be held by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda for all workers and peasants before the elections.
2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant associations.
4. The organisation, at the latest on 10 March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
6. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.
7. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces; no political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In place of the political section, various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
10. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups; the abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.
11. The granting to the peasants of freedom of ac ...


At this early point in the USSRs history there were foreign governments trying to subvert the people's will.  There was a policy of "war communism".  These reactionaries, yes they were exactly that, were not getting what they wanted and pitched a biatch fit because of it.  I'm sorry but war is hell and when you stage a counterrevolution during an already existing war you're asking for ass beating.  The Bolsheviks made the absolute right call in destroying those traitors.  I would would make the same decision they did every day of the week.

Tell me again, how many successful anarchist revolutions have occurred?
 
2013-11-08 11:09:52 AM
I'm glad you realize that Bakunin was a vile bigot.  At least, I take your silence to mean that you understand that he was.

Oh yeah didn't the granddaddy of anarchism Proudhon give his support to the Confederate States of America? Yep, he did!

Seems like anarchists have always been on the wrong side of history a lot.
 
2013-11-08 11:19:59 AM
The right to control the use of an object.

Based on ....?

------------

Reality. People use objects, starting with our bodies, then food, and expanding out from there to potentially include every tangible thing humans can reach.

Uses conflict. We both can't eat the fish I caught. We both can't use the hammer I built. Conflict of use is called "rivalry." Rivalry can be resolved by either the Law of the Jungle, or by ethics.

The former needs no explanation or discussion.

Ethics as a mode of resolving rivalry means that conflicting uses need to be sorted into priorities. There must be some principled means of determining priority of use of things, or it's just Open Season on the weak. That system of principles is property.

Zeitgeist, Communism, and all the rest, pretend that property rights are bad and wrong, while at the same time claiming they have superior property rights to whatever objects they're seizing and usurping control over at the moment.
 
2013-11-08 11:26:54 AM

Phinn: Zeitgeist, Communism, and all the rest, pretend that property rights are bad and wrong, while at the same time claiming they have superior property rights to whatever objects they're seizing and usurping control over at the moment.


Private property used in the exploitation of the working class is wrong.  I don't think a communist or an anarchist would give a shiat about personal property, i.e. your hammer or fish you just caught.
 
2013-11-08 11:29:24 AM

FarkedOver: Phinn: I like Ran Domino too, even though he's completely wrong on some major points. His ideology is infinitely preferable to the pap spewed by the hordes of professional moderates on Fark, whose most complex thought consists of "Both sides are bad! The best idea must be somewhere in the middle!"

That sort of throw-away comment (repeated daily around here) is a non-thought. A non-principle. It's the negation of rationality and principle altogether. Its proponents go about their lives assuming that the political opinions of others must somehow average into something approaching truth.

The Creed of the Moderate is a sentiment that says nothing, posits nothing, proves nothing, and is only notable as an exceptional way to avoid thinking.

Ran's flaw in thinking is that he believes the bourgeois will simply just vanish.  Marxist understand that, that has NEVER happened and you need a workers state to protect the gains of any workers revolution.  Simply having a revolution and resting on your laurels is a great way to die.

Bakunin's thinking of man and freedom was short-sighted at best.  He saw man as a natural species and defines freedom as acting naturally.  Marx was correct in his analysis that man constantly strives to lift himself/herself above nature.  Man uses nature to their will and that freedom is working collectively and acting rationally.

Capitalists will point out that this is not the way the world works.  Marx would also agree with you.  Marx would go on to tell you that the point isn't to explain how the world works, the point is to change how the world works.  Marx believes that man is perfectly capable of making the rational choice to work together for the betterment of everyone.  To suggest man cannot is not giving man enough credit.


Marxists who believe that there needs to be a state, workers or not, are not really following Marx.
 
2013-11-08 11:31:01 AM

vygramul: Marxists who believe that there needs to be a state, workers or not, are not really following Marx.


Really? Do you know anything about the dictatorship of the proletariat and THEN the withering away of the state? You smash the bourgeois state and institute the workers state, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat..... this is communism 101.
 
2013-11-08 11:33:02 AM

FarkedOver: You blame anarchists failures on Marxists.  I blame Marxist failures on capitalists...


But as you state, you cannot get rid of the bourgeois, and therefore Marxism cannot possibly succeed. The very premise upon which the entire theory rests is fundamentally flawed.
 
2013-11-08 11:34:13 AM

vygramul: FarkedOver: You blame anarchists failures on Marxists.  I blame Marxist failures on capitalists...

But as you state, you cannot get rid of the bourgeois, and therefore Marxism cannot possibly succeed. The very premise upon which the entire theory rests is fundamentally flawed.


No, that's not what I said.  I said that it hasn't happened.  That's not to say it isn't possible.
 
2013-11-08 11:34:43 AM

FarkedOver: vygramul: Marxists who believe that there needs to be a state, workers or not, are not really following Marx.

Really? Do you know anything about the dictatorship of the proletariat and THEN the withering away of the state? You smash the bourgeois state and institute the workers state, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat..... this is communism 101.


Except you just said that you can't ever get rid of the bourgeois. Until you do, you can't have that withering away.
 
2013-11-08 11:36:20 AM

vygramul: Except you just said that you can't ever get rid of the bourgeois. Until you do, you can't have that withering away.


Again, not what I said.  I said that it hasn't happened.  That doesn't mean it is not possible.  I have never claimed that it is impossible to rid the world of the Bourgeois.  It just hasn't happened.  Do you see the difference?
 
2013-11-08 11:45:23 AM

FarkedOver: vygramul: Except you just said that you can't ever get rid of the bourgeois. Until you do, you can't have that withering away.

Again, not what I said.  I said that it hasn't happened.  That doesn't mean it is not possible.  I have never claimed that it is impossible to rid the world of the Bourgeois.  It just hasn't happened.  Do you see the difference?


To further expand, I would say it would be an impossibility to rid the world of the bourgeois via anarchist tactics.
 
2013-11-08 11:45:38 AM

FarkedOver: vygramul: Except you just said that you can't ever get rid of the bourgeois. Until you do, you can't have that withering away.

Again, not what I said.  I said that it hasn't happened.  That doesn't mean it is not possible.  I have never claimed that it is impossible to rid the world of the Bourgeois.  It just hasn't happened.  Do you see the difference?


Yes, the second time I said that came before I saw your clarification.

I would have to disagree that it would be any more possible than it is to get rid of all psychopaths.
 
2013-11-08 11:50:50 AM

FarkedOver: Phinn: Zeitgeist, Communism, and all the rest, pretend that property rights are bad and wrong, while at the same time claiming they have superior property rights to whatever objects they're seizing and usurping control over at the moment.

Private property used in the exploitation of the working class is wrong.  I don't think a communist or an anarchist would give a shiat about personal property, i.e. your hammer or fish you just caught.


Nobody has ever been able to explain what "exploitation" is and isn't. It's like pornography -- you're supposed to know it when you see it. It's a euphemism for "vague dissatisfactions I can use for political sloganeering."

Also, property is not the hammer or the fish. It's not the thing. Property is the abstract principle that determines the priority of use between 2 or more people regarding a thing.

There are only 2 possible ways to do that -- a principle, or a rock to the head.
 
2013-11-08 12:08:57 PM

Phinn: FarkedOver: Phinn: Zeitgeist, Communism, and all the rest, pretend that property rights are bad and wrong, while at the same time claiming they have superior property rights to whatever objects they're seizing and usurping control over at the moment.

Private property used in the exploitation of the working class is wrong.  I don't think a communist or an anarchist would give a shiat about personal property, i.e. your hammer or fish you just caught.

Nobody has ever been able to explain what "exploitation" is and isn't. It's like pornography -- you're supposed to know it when you see it. It's a euphemism for "vague dissatisfactions I can use for political sloganeering."

Also, property is not the hammer or the fish. It's not the thing. Property is the abstract principle that determines the priority of use between 2 or more people regarding a thing.

There are only 2 possible ways to do that -- a principle, or a rock to the head.


Exploitation isn't always a bad word.  Man exploits the land to grow food and keep himself fed.

In capitalism, you have one class of people, using (exploiting) another class of people to obtain more capital.  It's rather simple and not as convoluted as you're attempting to make it be (the definition of exploitation any way).  The capitalist pays the worker for their labor but in order to get a greater return on their initial investment, the worker can never be paid what they are truly worth.  The worker has no choice but to work for a class of people who have emancipated themselves from labor and are only able to do this is via the capitalists exploitation of the worker.
 
2013-11-08 12:45:16 PM

slayer199: EWreckedSean: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "

Which going back to my original point, government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, not usurp it.


Your not very good at following conversations are you? How many times are you going to blast me in the same thread for agreeing with you? Not really helping your case...
 
2013-11-08 12:45:52 PM

FarkedOver: Phinn: FarkedOver: Phinn: Zeitgeist, Communism, and all the rest, pretend that property rights are bad and wrong, while at the same time claiming they have superior property rights to whatever objects they're seizing and usurping control over at the moment.

Private property used in the exploitation of the working class is wrong.  I don't think a communist or an anarchist would give a shiat about personal property, i.e. your hammer or fish you just caught.

Nobody has ever been able to explain what "exploitation" is and isn't. It's like pornography -- you're supposed to know it when you see it. It's a euphemism for "vague dissatisfactions I can use for political sloganeering."

Also, property is not the hammer or the fish. It's not the thing. Property is the abstract principle that determines the priority of use between 2 or more people regarding a thing.

There are only 2 possible ways to do that -- a principle, or a rock to the head.

Exploitation isn't always a bad word.  Man exploits the land to grow food and keep himself fed.

In capitalism, you have one class of people, using (exploiting) another class of people to obtain more capital.  It's rather simple and not as convoluted as you're attempting to make it be (the definition of exploitation any way).  The capitalist pays the worker for their labor but in order to get a greater return on their initial investment, the worker can never be paid what they are truly worth.  The worker has no choice but to work for a class of people who have emancipated themselves from labor and are only able to do this is via the capitalists exploitation of the worker.


Capital isn't a bad word either. It's just savings from prior production.

The person with savings wants to continue growing his wealth, as everyone does, and the laborer with no savings (esp. young people) has nothing to offer but his time. So they trade.

In other words, their needs are asymmetrical. The owner can afford to take more risk than the employee, so he pays the employee up front, long before the revenue from the labor actually arrives.

And the owner (or whoever is performing the entrepreneurial functions) does some critical, valuable tasks along the way, such as organizing everyone involved to a common purpose -- producing some thing. Labor doesn't organize itself. It doesn't direct itself. Someone must do the work of identifying the most desired good to produce and how to produce it. That's not easy. It takes innovation. It takes a keen analysis of other producers and the consumer's myriad unmet preferences, many of which can only be approximated.

Notice how collectivism, which tries to eliminate the entrepreneur, has trouble identifying what to produce, how much of each good to produce, and innovating how to produce them, all of which must be done in the face of a constantly changing economic landscape. Entrepreneurs are the ones who help everyone else perceive, forecast and thus adapt.

That's not exploitation. That's highly complex mutual cooperation, for mutual benefit.
 
2013-11-08 12:54:45 PM
FarkedOver
Ran's flaw in thinking is that he believes the bourgeois will simply just vanish

My first reaction is that you're totally nuts; but I suspect you may be so far down the rabbit hole that you buy the line that Anarchists are petit bourgeoisie because we oppose personal property being confiscated.

you need a workers state to protect/roll back the gains of any workers revolution

FTFY

You blame anarchists failures on Marxists.

More specifically, on trusting Marxists. It's a mistake we won't make again.

I blame Marxist failures on capitalists...

How does that make sense? "If it hadn't been for our sworn enemies, we would have won for sure!"

At this early point in the USSRs history there were foreign governments trying to subvert the people's will.

Blah blah blah. "OMG 17 COUNTRIES INVADED!"
Never mind that the Makhnovshchina was able to field an effective fighting force without having to turn into a totalitarian state. Which, by the way, saved Moscow's ass by annihilating Wrangel's rearguard. At no point were the Ukranians or Kronstadt sailors against the revolution; they were liquidated merely for refusing to bend knee to the Bolsheviks.
Communists think that pretending to be a conventional army is the only way to beat a conventional army, but that's a foolish strategy if the goal is anything other than to replicate a conventional State, with all its evils. Even from a military perspective, trying to beat an army with another army is symmetric warfare, which only works if you have superior resources. Thus the "Miracle on the Vistula" and the Fascist victory in the Spanish Civil War.

Oh yeah didn't the granddaddy of anarchism Proudhon give his support to the Confederate States of America? Yep, he did!

'Either the term "confederation" has some meaning, by virtue of which the founders of the Union sought to distinguish it strictly from all other political systems -- in which case, leaving aside the question of slavery, the North's war against the South is unjust; or else, under the guise of confederation, the secret intention has been to found a great empire when the time was ripe -- in which case, the Americans should remove from their platforms all reference to political liberty, the republic, democracy, confederation, even Union.'

and THEN the withering away of the state

lol okay

To further expand, I would say it would be an impossibility to rid the world of the bourgeois via anarchist tactics.

How would putting the means of production and property directly under the control of the people who use them, rather than letting them be owned by landlords and capitalists, not immediately erase the bourgeoisie as a class? Class is defined by relationship to means of production, yes?


Phinn
Reality. People use objects, starting with our bodies, then food, and expanding out from there to potentially include every tangible thing humans can reach.

Okay, so property ownership should be based on use. That's the anti-capitalist position.
 
2013-11-08 01:10:00 PM
"All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat, and other little acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public convention. Hence the public has the right of regulating descents, and all other conveyances of property, and even of limiting the quantity and the uses of it.

All the property that is necessary to a man, for the conservation of the Individual and the propagation of the species, is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of: but all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the public, who, by their laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such disposition. He that does not like civil society on these terms, let him retire and live among savages. He can have no right to the benefits of society, who will not pay his club towards the support of it."

- Benjamin Franklin

---

Since "civil society" is what allows a man to amass a fortune without all the trouble of building castles and armies to house and defend it, and civil society requires all its members to buy in and respect its laws and social arrangement, then society must "work" for everyone.

It cannot simply be a means of protecting the property of the wealthy from the poor. If it is, then it's invalid, unjust, and illegitimate... and those who are trampled underfoot by it would owe no duty to honor the social compacts which essentially enslave them and make them little more than property or cattle belonging to the men at the top who have rigged the system to their own benefit.

This is not to say that everyone should be equal and that there should be no such thing as wealth... but one extreme is as bad as another. To say that property is some sacred and utterly inviolable right that cannot be possibly be addressed or limited to prevent hardship and promote the greater good is to ignore the fact that extreme wealth owes its existence to the very society is made dysfunctional by extreme disparities in wealth.

At the end of the day, if you can ask (or force) an 18 year old to go die to preserve the health of the country which makes his liberty possible, then you can absolutely ask (or force) a billionaire to kick in a little more of his wealth or subject his companies to a little more regulation to ensure that common everyday Americans see a legitimate return on participating in and recognizing the legitimacy of that system that allows him live like Midas.

(and make no mistake... if the safety of this country or the security of its resources were in serious jeopardy, a draft would be reinstated lickety-split)
 
2013-11-08 01:15:40 PM

RanDomino: How would putting the means of production and property directly under the control of the people who use them, rather than letting them be owned by landlords and capitalists, not immediately erase the bourgeoisie as a class? Class is defined by relationship to means of production, yes?


I want exactly that, but I want a state apparatus and a red army to protect all of that.

If you and I were to talk to Joe Schmo on the street and explain our positions they'd be like.... "Ok, you guys are different how?"

Go ahead and don't trust Marxists, that is perfectly fine but you'll never get any where without us.

RanDomino: How does that make sense? "If it hadn't been for our sworn enemies, we would have won for sure!"


Because they are hell bent on making sure any leftist movement doesn't succeed.  I don't need to tell you think, you know this already.

RanDomino: How would putting the means of production and property directly under the control of the people who use them, rather than letting them be owned by landlords and capitalists, not immediately erase the bourgeoisie as a class? Class is defined by relationship to means of production, yes?


Just because the working class is in control of the means of production doesn't mean there won't be a bourgeoisie backlash.... You would have to make sure that this happened  globally in order for that to succeed, and that will not happen.
 
2013-11-08 01:27:55 PM
"Okay, so property ownership should be based on use. That's the anti-capitalist position."

Yes and no. Property is the set of ethical principles governing people's use of things. Use is not equivalent to ownership, or else we'd just be able to call it "use."

The first user of an unowned object becomes the owner. That's self-evident and axiomatic. Not King Muckity Muck claiming a new continent. Actual use of unowned things creates the first ownership.

The owner then can do whatever he chooses with it. In an advanced economy, producers over-produce and trade the excess, for other (owned) objects (or services).

As long as everyone trades voluntarily, then all trades create a mutual benefit. "Voluntary" means being free from attack on the person, or stealing others' property. That's also self-evident and axiomatic.

Only the division of labor and this sort of voluntary, peaceful, respectful (i.e. free) exchange of property rights in goods can increase wealth. All other types of interactions necessarily involve aggression, and thus result in a loss of wealth.
 
2013-11-08 02:25:54 PM

Phinn: As long as everyone trades voluntarily, then all trades create a mutual benefit. "Voluntary" means being free from attack on the person, or stealing others' property. That's also self-evident and axiomatic.

Only the division of labor and this sort of voluntary, peaceful, respectful (i.e. free) exchange of property rights in goods can increase wealth. All other types of interactions necessarily involve aggression, and thus result in a loss of wealth.


Yayyyy, more masturbatory "barrel of a gun" bullshiat.

When you decide to maintain citizenship and residence within a country, you agree to abide by its laws... even if you don't like them and feel they adversely affect you. In the U.S., you're free to try to change them, and if you can't, you're free to leave.

Opting to stay implies acceptance to the terms of residence... i.e. no "aggression" or "coercion" or "violence" or "theft" or any of the other shrieking chicken little bullshiat you guys like to spout.


cdn01.cdnwp.thefrisky.com
 
2013-11-08 02:53:18 PM
Phinn
Capital isn't a bad word either. It's just savings from prior production.

Capital refers specifically to productive power. A pile of money on its own means nothing. There has to be something to invest in for it to really be 'capital'. Machines in a factory are capital goods even in a society where money doesn't exist.

And the owner (or whoever is performing the entrepreneurial functions) does some critical, valuable tasks

If they do work, why are proles paid (time x wage) whereas bourgies paid (profit per commodity x number of commodities sold)?

Notice how collectivism, which tries to eliminate the entrepreneur, has trouble identifying what to produce, how much of each good to produce, and innovating how to produce them, all of which must be done in the face of a constantly changing economic landscape.

After the 1936 revolution in Spain, the CNT largely took control of the economy in Catalonia. Not only were there no shortages, but I've read repeatedly that productivity actually increased- not sure how much of it is true and how much is propaganda, but it seems clear that, at the very least, the economy did not collapse as capitalists always seem to declare that it will. In 1937, the CNT was in the process of centralizing and modernizing iirc steel production in Barcelona to increase productivity and free up labor for other tasks- without competition or capitalism being involved in the equation at all. That's because the CNT was a syndicalist* organization rather than a communist one.

*They're usually called anarcho-syndicalist, but given their joining the government and the leadership's deplorable actions in the May 1937 events, I think the CNT union itself was syndicalist even though many members were anarchists and anarcho-syndicalist.

Use is not equivalent to ownership, or else we'd just be able to call it "use."

Which is why anticapitalists are generally against "property". We DO just call it "use". Anyone who claims to own something which they do not use is a thief. What "use" means is highly variable, but largely intuitive, in a way that arguing about that would be pointless- when a situation is described, and anyone is asked about the ownership of an object in the given circumstances, 99%** of people will agree about who 'rightly' owns it, even if it's practically impossible to state the exact legalistic rules governing that ownership.

For example: An empty house. It's abandoned, so the first person to homestead it gets to have it. But wait, the previous occupant was merely out at the grocery; it's their property. But they only occupied it for a few hours before that, having murdered the previous tenants and hid their bodies in the basement; the murderer's property claim is forfeit. And so on. This could get infinitely complicated, and therefore in practice is impossible to transcribe into a law-code... but practically everyone intuitively agrees with all of these conclusions about right and wrong. That universal understanding is what Anarchism relies on, and it works.

**I may have invented this number, but close enough

All other types of interactions necessarily involve aggression

This is a circular argument. It's aggression BY YOUR DEFINITION of property.


FarkedOver
I want exactly that, but I want a state apparatus and a red army to protect all of that.

A state apparatus and red army do not protect it, but usurp it. Federation and militia or bust.

Because they are hell bent on making sure any leftist movement doesn't succeed. I don't need to tell you think, you know this already.

It's your job to beat them, not complain about them.

Just because the working class is in control of the means of production doesn't mean there won't be a bourgeoisie backlash.... You would have to make sure that this happened globally in order for that to succeed, and that will not happen.

That's a matter of strategy and warfare, and we've already seen how the Marxists handle that. Yes, the anarchist strategy may be a long shot, but it's better than a proven failure.


technicolor-misfit
In the U.S. ... you're free to leave.

I am not free to withdraw from the United States organization, as if I cease to pay taxes and to rely upon government services then armed thugs will still drag me out of my house and throw me in a cage.
 
2013-11-08 02:59:20 PM

technicolor-misfit: When you decide to maintain citizenship and residence within a country, you agree to abide by its laws... even if you don't like them and feel they adversely affect you. In the U.S., you're free to try to change them, and if you can't, you're free to leave.

Opting to stay implies acceptance to the terms of residence... i.e. no "aggression" or "coercion" or "violence" or "theft" or any of the other shrieking chicken little bullshiat you guys like to spout.



You agreed to abide by my rules when you decided to post a comment in this thread.  And by using the letter "e" several times, which I own.

That's consent, biatch.  You've availed yourself of the services that I chose to make you accept, and which I decide what they are worth to you.

Unfortunately for you, my rules require that you pay me a very large percentage of your gross income.  And you have to come over and mow my lawn.

I have a large-format document right here that is written in very fancy cursive handwriting and was signed by some old dudes (who are all dead) that unequivocally grants me these powers.

So, that's, like, double consent.  QED.
 
2013-11-08 03:36:25 PM

RanDomino: And the owner (or whoever is performing the entrepreneurial functions) does some critical, valuable tasks

If they do work, why are proles paid (time x wage) whereas bourgies paid (profit per commodity x number of commodities sold)?



That's how entrepreneurs get paid for their contribution to the enterprise.

Let's say it's a simple factory making blue widgets.  There's an entrepreneur and a few employee laborers.  But there's also the landowner, the equipment provider, the material supplier, the financier, the marketing people, the salesmen, etc.  The entrepreneurial functions must be performed by someone (the owner, or his delegate).  If he's successful, it means he has:

- identified an unmet or undermet consumer preference that people are willing to pay for (instead of whatever else they could be buying);
- analyzed the markets for all of the various factors of production (space, equipment, materials, employees, marketing, administration, etc.), as well as the market for the good to be sold, all expressed in prices which constantly change;
- organized and obtained the agreement of all of the different people involved in all the various functions (the financing, the suppliers, the production, the marketing, etc.), and coordinated their contributions;
- produced the good efficiently (i.e., in a way that costs less than the social value of the good itself -- not at an overall loss to society);
- adapted to constantly-changing prices in all involved markets (suppliers, labor, the good sold, etc.)
- took the risk that the venture would fail and that he would not be paid at all.

These tasks are important.  You can make clay pots or boots or laser printers all day long, but identifying exactly WHICH products or services to produce, and HOW to go about producing them efficiently, is not easy.  If it's so easy, I'd like to know how many times you've done it.  These factors also constantly change, as consumers constantly change their preferences, as other producers try to fulfill the preferences of these same consumers, and as prices for everything involved in the production constantly change.

The person who does these things well deserves to be paid well for doing them.  These are the people who made the decisions that resulted in the innovative improvement of every product and production practice in use today.

The business as a whole earns a profit only after ALL of the other factors of production have been paid.  Profit is revenue minus overhead, which is every other cost of producing something.

Everyone else gets paid for their contribution to the production of a successful, desirable product that people voluntarily choose to buy.  Money lenders get paid in the form of interest on their loans.  Suppliers get paid in the form of the purchase price of the good supplied.  The real estate and equipment suppliers gets paid in the form of either a purchase price or lease payments. Employees get paid a flat rate for their time.  Salesmen get paid a commission on the volume of goods sold.

The business's overall "profit," is whatever is left over, if anything.  Who gets that?  The one who organized the whole operation, and he ONLY gets paid that amount IF he actually succeeded in producing something at a lower cost than what he sold it for.  "Profit" is just the name we give to the manner in which the person who performs the entrepreneurial functions of a business gets paid.  But everyone else involved in the business "profits" (in the general sense) by virtue of their participation in the business.

Proles get paid a flat rate, up front, for their time (along with whatever other incentives they are typically paid) because that's what they've bargained for.  They typically have the lowest risk tolerance, so getting paid a flat rate on a short time table is a way of meeting their preferences.  Commissioned salesmen get paid a little differently -- they often take the risk that they won't sell the thing, because they often get a straight commission (or a reduced wage with a larger commission on the back end).  That type of employee has more risk tolerance than an hourly wage-earner.  Marketing and accounting are typically performed as outside services, farmed out on a contract basis, so they are basically just by-the-hour jobs, but on a higher hourly rate level (although some forms of skilled production labor gets paid a lot more than some white collar admin services).  Lenders take an even larger risk, because they can, even though loans default all the time. (Although you won't get any argument out of me about how deeply perverted the financial industry is, due to a corrupt State.)

RanDomino: This is a circular argument. It's aggression BY YOUR DEFINITION of property.



It's no more or less circular than yours.  You also distinguish between aggression (unethical violence) and defensive force (ethical violence) according to your ideas of property.  The problem is that your ideas of property are perverse and nonsensical.

True principles of property are based on reason, are well-established, universal in their application, clearly defined, and intuitive to everyone who's not a sociopath.
 
2013-11-08 03:44:23 PM

Phinn: It's no more or less circular than yours. You also distinguish between aggression (unethical violence) and defensive force (ethical violence) according to your ideas of property. The problem is that your ideas of property are perverse and nonsensical.

True principles of property are based on reason, are well-established, universal in their application, clearly defined, and intuitive to everyone who's not a sociopath.


"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths." - Marx

I think Marxist and Anarchists can agree that the abolition of private property is the ultimate goal of the anti-capitalists.

We all know and understand how property works and how it is acquired and held, the goal is to change the perception of property not to explain it.
 
2013-11-08 03:50:50 PM
Phinn
That's how entrepreneurs get paid for their contribution to the enterprise.

Yes, yes, yes, you don't have to explain Econ 101 to anti-capitalists. The REASON we're against capitalism is because we understand it. You have answered the question at the most basic level and I award you 0 points.

It's no more or less circular than yours. You also distinguish between aggression (unethical violence) and defensive force (ethical violence) according to your ideas of property. The problem is that your ideas of property are perverse and nonsensical.

You have already agreed that property is based on "People use objects." That's not capitalism. Capitalism is title-based property, not use-based property. But I suspect you realize that title-based property is indefensible, because it is inhumane in situations where there is a surplus even while some people go without basic necessities- for example, the existence of empty houses contemporaneously with the existence of homeless people.

It's a way of dealing with shortages, but scarcity has been effectively conquered; arguably since the Industrial Revolution, certainly since the Green Revolution. At least, for any reasonable definition of the word "scarcity" such as "not enough necessities to keep everyone healthy"- the capitalistic definition of "scarcity" as "not everything is infinite" should be tossed out a window.
 
2013-11-08 03:55:54 PM
Also,

True principles of property are based on reason, are well-established, universal in their application, clearly defined, and intuitive to everyone who's not a sociopath.

Pick four. Capitalistic property is hardly intuitive or reasonable, supposedly universal but in practice not, and only sometimes clearly defined. Anarchistic property is merely undefinable (or rather uncodable); its intuitiveness more than makes up for that.
 
2013-11-08 03:56:01 PM

RanDomino: You have already agreed that property is based on "People use objects." That's not capitalism. Capitalism is title-based property, not use-based property. But I suspect you realize that title-based property is indefensible, because it is inhumane in situations where there is a surplus even while some people go without basic necessities- for example, the existence of empty houses contemporaneously with the existence of homeless people.

It's a way of dealing with shortages, but scarcity has been effectively conquered; arguably since the Industrial Revolution, certainly since the Green Revolution. At least, for any reasonable definition of the word "scarcity" such as "not enough necessities to keep everyone healthy"- the capitalistic definition of "scarcity" as "not everything is infinite" should be tossed out a window.


This is spot on.  The fact that there are more vacant homes than there are homeless people is farked up.  The fact that there is enough food to feed every mouth on the planet is farked up.  There is no scarcity for the vital needs of human beings and if there are issues they are typically artificial.
 
2013-11-08 03:57:10 PM

FarkedOver: RanDomino: You have already agreed that property is based on "People use objects." That's not capitalism. Capitalism is title-based property, not use-based property. But I suspect you realize that title-based property is indefensible, because it is inhumane in situations where there is a surplus even while some people go without basic necessities- for example, the existence of empty houses contemporaneously with the existence of homeless people.

It's a way of dealing with shortages, but scarcity has been effectively conquered; arguably since the Industrial Revolution, certainly since the Green Revolution. At least, for any reasonable definition of the word "scarcity" such as "not enough necessities to keep everyone healthy"- the capitalistic definition of "scarcity" as "not everything is infinite" should be tossed out a window.

This is spot on.  The fact that there are more vacant homes than there are homeless people is farked up.  The fact that there is enough food to feed every mouth on the planet, but yet people starve is farked up.  There is no scarcity for the vital needs of human beings and if there are issues they are typically artificial.


FTFM
 
2013-11-08 04:16:24 PM

RanDomino: Phinn
That's how entrepreneurs get paid for their contribution to the enterprise.

Yes, yes, yes, you don't have to explain Econ 101 to anti-capitalists. The REASON we're against capitalism is because we understand it. You have answered the question at the most basic level and I award you 0 points.



You never know what people don't know.  For example, I don't get the impression that anyone I'm speaking to here has every owned a business.  Or run one.  Or hired anyone.

People with such limited experience that tend to overlook, or completely misunderstand, the nature of entrepreneurship, because they've never done it, or perhaps never even seen it or even read about it.  They believe that the stores in the malls that sell their faux-combat boots and Che shirts just sprang into existence, like Athena from the head of Zeus, fully formed, from nothing.

It's understandable.  They've had their expenses paid by their parents their whole lives, and seen the world from the perspective of either a ward of the State schooling system, or as a low-level employee.

It's no more or less circular than yours. You also distinguish between aggression (unethical violence) and defensive force (ethical violence) according to your ideas of property. The problem is that your ideas of property are perverse and nonsensical.

You have already agreed that property is based on "People use objects." That's not capitalism. Capitalism is title-based property, not use-based property. But I suspect you realize that title-based property is indefensible, because it is inhumane in situations where there is a surplus even while some people go without basic necessities- for example, the existence of empty houses contemporaneously with the existence of homeless people.



Title-based property is not indefensible.  That's absurd.  Does property get abandoned?  Sure.  Then it's unowned again, and can be owned by the first new user.

Some cost went into the production of every good.  That conversion of once-unowned objects into a desirable economic good created ownership, which was then transferred by agreement to the next person, for value, and so on.  Every transfer of title comes with a countervailing cost.

To declare that property will be deemed abandoned (and taken for no value) just because some people have more stuff than others will ensure that those excess goods will never be built in the first place.  The costs of producing them will not be incurred if the good is only going to be seized, in the name of the Almighty Benevolent State, according to the Collectivist Property rules that you admit have no real definition.


It's a way of dealing with shortages, but scarcity has been effectively conquered; arguably since the Industrial Revolution, certainly since the Green Revolution. At least, for any reasonable definition of the word "scarcity" such as "not enough necessities to keep everyone healthy"- the capitalistic definition of "scarcity" as "not everything is infinite" should be tossed out a window.

Scarcity has not been conquered.  That's absurd.  Scarcity is rivalry, and as long as there are multiple people occupying space near each other, and interacting, using finite objects, in the real world, there is rivalry.

Even in the abundant economy in which we live in today, I notice that there's a "scarcity" of people wanting to pay me a living wage to write novels by day and play bass in a jazz fusion band by night, yielding enough for me to own a nice, clean apartment overlooking the water with wi-fi and all the sushi I can eat.

There's probably someone out there with that kind of job, and I'm in rivalry with him, and thus I have to produce novels and bass music in a way that equals or exceeds his production, as determined by paying consumers.  Likewise, there's someone out there with a more desirable apartment than I have, and I'm in rivalry with him.  I could offer to buy it from him, but I have to weigh my desire for that property against everything I could do with that money, just as he has to weigh the amount of money I'd offer to pay him to buy it against the prospect of not getting my money.

How are any of these decisions to be made, about what to produce and what to consume, without prices?  It's impossible, because even in relative abundance, everything we could produce or consume is rivalrous with everything else.
 
2013-11-08 04:43:22 PM
Phinn:

You make it seem as if competition among the working class is a good thing.  I submit that it is not.  I love what Engels has to say on the subject (below).  Competition (or rivalry as you called it) like private property is one of the systems used to control the working class by the capitalists to line their own pockets and perpetuate their existence.

"Competition is the completest expression of the battle of all against all which rules in modern civil society. This battle, a battle for life, for existence, for everything, in case of need a battle of life and death, is fought not between the different classes of society only, but also between the individual members of these classes. Each is in the way of the other, and each seeks to crowd out all who are in his way, and to put himself in their place. The workers are in constant competition among themselves as are the members of the bourgeoisie among themselves. The power-loom weaver is in competition with the hand-loom weaver, the unemployed or ill-paid hand-loom weaver with him who has work or is better paid, each trying to supplant the other. But this competition of the workers among themselves is the worst side of the present state of things in its effect upon the worker, the sharpest weapon against the proletariat in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Hence the effort of the workers to nullify this competition by associations, hence the hatred of the bourgeoisie towards these associations, and its triumph in every defeat which befalls them. "  -- F. Engels Condition of the Working Class in England -- Competition

He further expands on competition and the proletarian class in "The Principles of Communism".
 
2013-11-08 04:52:30 PM

FarkedOver: Phinn:

You make it seem as if competition among the working class is a good thing.  I submit that it is not.  I love what Engels has to say on the subject (below).  Competition (or rivalry as you called it) like private property is one of the systems used to control the working class by the capitalists to line their own pockets and perpetuate their existence.

"Competition is the completest expression of the battle of all against all which rules in modern civil society. This battle, a battle for life, for existence, for everything, in case of need a battle of life and death, is fought not between the different classes of society only, but also between the individual members of these classes. Each is in the way of the other, and each seeks to crowd out all who are in his way, and to put himself in their place. The workers are in constant competition among themselves as are the members of the bourgeoisie among themselves. The power-loom weaver is in competition with the hand-loom weaver, the unemployed or ill-paid hand-loom weaver with him who has work or is better paid, each trying to supplant the other. But this competition of the workers among themselves is the worst side of the present state of things in its effect upon the worker, the sharpest weapon against the proletariat in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Hence the effort of the workers to nullify this competition by associations, hence the hatred of the bourgeoisie towards these associations, and its triumph in every defeat which befalls them. "  -- F. Engels Condition of the Working Class in England -- Competition

He further expands on competition and the proletarian class in "The Principles of Communism".


Ever read Allan Megill's stuff?
 
2013-11-08 05:27:26 PM
Phinn
You never know what people don't know. For example, I don't get the impression that anyone I'm speaking to here has every owned a business. Or run one. Or hired anyone.

It's enough to see that those who own businesses tend to speak and behave as though 'their' employees are tools rather than people.

Does property get abandoned? Sure. Then it's unowned again, and can be owned by the first new user.

You clearly have not thought this position through, because it betrays your entire argument. TRUE arch-capitalists have decided that title NEVER decays, no matter how long something is abandoned. The reason is that if you allow for abandonment and re-homesteading, then ownership has to be based on some principle other than title. i.e. use.

Scarcity has not been conquered. That's absurd. Scarcity is rivalry, and as long as there are multiple people occupying space near each other, and interacting, using finite objects, in the real world, there is rivalry.

As I said, "At least, for any reasonable definition of the word "scarcity" such as "not enough necessities to keep everyone healthy"- the capitalistic definition of "scarcity" as "not everything is infinite" should be tossed out a window."
The insane but common capitalist definition of scarcity is based on the idea that everyone is a sociopath. Actually, that applies to quite a few ideas in capitalist economic theory.
 
2013-11-08 06:09:19 PM

FarkedOver: Phinn:

You make it seem as if competition among the working class is a good thing.  I submit that it is not.  I love what Engels has to say on the subject (below).  Competition (or rivalry as you called it) like private property is one of the systems used to control the working class by the capitalists to line their own pockets and perpetuate their existence.

"Competition is the completest expression of the battle of all against all which rules in modern civil society. This battle, a battle for life, for existence, for everything, in case of need a battle of life and death, is fought not between the different classes of society only, but also between the individual members of these classes. Each is in the way of the other, and each seeks to crowd out all who are in his way, and to put himself in their place. The workers are in constant competition among themselves as are the members of the bourgeoisie among themselves. The power-loom weaver is in competition with the hand-loom weaver, the unemployed or ill-paid hand-loom weaver with him who has work or is better paid, each trying to supplant the other. But this competition of the workers among themselves is the worst side of the present state of things in its effect upon the worker, the sharpest weapon against the proletariat in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Hence the effort of the workers to nullify this competition by associations, hence the hatred of the bourgeoisie towards these associations, and its triumph in every defeat which befalls them. "  -- F. Engels Condition of the Working Class in England -- Competition

He further expands on competition and the proletarian class in "The Principles of Communism".


Competition is part of life. The dollar weed competes with the St. Augustine grass in my yard for light and dirt and water. Jazz competes with blues for listeners. Teachers of physics compete with Literature teachers for student's attention. Workers who make boots compete with makers of refrigerators, telephones, pencils, car parts, jackets and chicken feed. They can't all be manufactured to maximum capacity. That would be wasteful.

Competition is an inevitable part of social life on one planet. Pretending otherwise is the height of magical thinking. It's childish.

But humans are special. We can do something no other life form can do -- imagine possible future outcomes of our actions. It enables us to choose, to make decisions. In particular, economic decisions (i.e., about consumption and production).

Choice gives us the ability to cooperate. We don't have to settle our inevitable rivalries over resources and goods with violence. We can respect each other's persons. We can behave ethically, not violently, in order to facilitate and maximize cooperation.

Market competition is the maximum level of cooperation possible. It's competitive, but only to the extent that people compete for the privilege of cooperating with a trading partner.

Everyone who wants food or clothing or shelter competes with every other consumer who is vying for the same goods (which is what prompts their production). Likewise, every producer competes with every other producer for the opportunity to trade with every consumer.

It's a competition to see who can be the most cooperative.

And since everyone is both a consumer and a producer, the number of economic choices to be made daily is virtually endless -- hundreds of economic decisions per person per day, where every decision about what to produce and what to consume competes with each other option, since every option involves an opportunity cost of every other possibility that is declined.
 
2013-11-08 07:10:17 PM
Phinn

There is no need for competition if there is no actual scarcity. You can wax poetic all you want about grass and music, but it serves only to dodge the reality that there is far more than enough food and shelter for everyone.
 
2013-11-08 07:59:35 PM

RanDomino: Phinn

There is no need for competition if there is no actual scarcity. You can wax poetic all you want about grass and music, but it serves only to dodge the reality that there is far more than enough food and shelter for everyone.


Scarcity is not just about the number of things but the opportunity cost as well. And also don't leave out transportation costs and other such things because while there may be enough food and shelter produced for everyone, that production does not happen in a vacuum.
 
2013-11-08 08:25:40 PM
vygramul
Scarcity is not just about the number of things but the opportunity cost as well. And also don't leave out transportation costs and other such things because while there may be enough food and shelter produced for everyone, that production does not happen in a vacuum.

Yes, even including that. Don't pretend that there isn't plenty to go around, if it was distributed that way. An economy that can afford to ship iphones from China to New York can ship food from Nebraska to Ethiopia. Instead, we're told this religious myth about scarcity and competition... no different than asking a Christian priest how Hell could exist if God has infinite mercy.
 
2013-11-08 08:29:54 PM

RanDomino: vygramul
Scarcity is not just about the number of things but the opportunity cost as well. And also don't leave out transportation costs and other such things because while there may be enough food and shelter produced for everyone, that production does not happen in a vacuum.

Yes, even including that. Don't pretend that there isn't plenty to go around, if it was distributed that way. An economy that can afford to ship iphones from China to New York can ship food from Nebraska to Ethiopia. Instead, we're told this religious myth about scarcity and competition... no different than asking a Christian priest how Hell could exist if God has infinite mercy.


Others have tested that hypothesis and failed. It doesn't work And don't forget that there are other interests. The entire point behind our intervention in Somalia was to make sure people got food. Turns out you have to kill a LOT of people who don't want that. It didn't take but a couple of downed helicopters to kill the effort.

Real life is much more complex, and just trucking food over to them is less of a solution (and less doable) than you might think. And much of that has to do directly with scarcity.